Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The caravan marches on
Speaker 1: and it grows now to seven thousand people. They look
Speaker 1: like they are going to keep going until they get
Speaker 1: to our southern border. What should Trump do and what
Speaker 1: do the Democrats claim we should do to deal with
Speaker 1: this massive movement of people. Also, beato Mania is a farce,
Speaker 1: but it tells us a lot about what the Democrats
Speaker 1: are planning, not just now, but for perhaps that and
Speaker 1: more coming up on the buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake,
Speaker 1: you're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: Analy Remember they have a lot of everybody in that group.
Speaker 1: It's a horrible things and it's a lot bigger than
Speaker 1: five thousand people. And we got to stop them at
Speaker 1: the border. And unfortunately, you look at the countries, they
Speaker 1: have not done their job. Unfortunately they have not done
Speaker 1: their job. Guatemala, Honduras, El Salventuring. They've paid a lot
Speaker 1: of money every year. We give them far today and
Speaker 1: they did nothing for us, nothing, They did nothing for us,
Speaker 1: So we give them tremendous amounts of money. You know
Speaker 1: what it is. You covered all the time, hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars. They, like a lot of others, do
Speaker 1: nothing our country. Welcome to the books. Accident show Trump
Speaker 1: laying down some truth. We need to stop the caravan.
Speaker 1: The caravan must be stopped. Uh, it's shouldn't it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be on us to do it. But I think we're
Speaker 1: going to have to. I do not think that we
Speaker 1: can trust at the Mexican government, which under the Merida initiative,
Speaker 1: I would note, which is similar to what we did
Speaker 1: in Plan Columbia, where we've effectively given them billions of
Speaker 1: dollars in aid and assistance over many years for their
Speaker 1: own security and counternarcotics and anti corruption measures. You would
Speaker 1: think that Mexico, which is a country that has dependent
Speaker 1: upon us largely for any number of economic avenues, lots
Speaker 1: of trade, lots of good things, that that they want
Speaker 1: to keep going, you think that they would be a
Speaker 1: very helpful partner in this. But of course they've got
Speaker 1: their own problems, and they don't want to stop seven
Speaker 1: thousand Hondurans from marching through their territory and ending up
Speaker 1: on the U. S. Border, and all claiming asylum. UM,
Speaker 1: I would just note that this issue is going to
Speaker 1: be demagogued into oblivion. So rather than get too deep,
Speaker 1: and we will talk more about some of the specifics
Speaker 1: here and what I think should happen. But let's start
Speaker 1: with a very simple question. What do the Democrats want
Speaker 1: us to do with this caravan which is as of
Speaker 1: today estimated to have seven thousand people in it? What
Speaker 1: do they want us to do? They should be forced
Speaker 1: to answer that question. Every Democrat who's seeking office in
Speaker 1: this country of an election two weeks away, Every Democrat
Speaker 1: should be asked on air, on the record, what should
Speaker 1: we do about this caravan. I'm noticing that that's not
Speaker 1: a question of you had I had CNN run a
Speaker 1: debate with Gilim and de Santists will run some audio
Speaker 1: from that later for you, some highlights, uh for the
Speaker 1: Florida governorship. But I don't remember that question being asked.
Speaker 1: And I want to ask by I want to ask
Speaker 1: by every journalist, if everyone running, what should be done here?
Speaker 1: Because you'll notice that what the Democrats offer as an
Speaker 1: answer is Trump is a racist, blah blah statue of liberty.
Speaker 1: That's not an answer. If they're saying that these are
Speaker 1: asylum seekers, these are refugees. Well, then I have to
Speaker 1: ask if these seven thousand people who are unvetted, who
Speaker 1: have not produced any documentation, yes they're undocumented. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't have anything about them. If they are just
Speaker 1: automatically to be treated as refugees, what about the millions
Speaker 1: of people who live in Honduras? Are they all refugees?
Speaker 1: I need to know if we are being told by
Speaker 1: the Democrats that this is a group of refugees, we
Speaker 1: need to know, Uh, what happens when seven thousand more
Speaker 1: show up, and then seven thousand more show up, and
Speaker 1: then fifteen thousand show up, and then twenty thousand show up.
Speaker 1: Why would that be? Why is that so hard? If
Speaker 1: if they get in, they'll they'll know this is the
Speaker 1: place to go, this is the way to do it.
Speaker 1: Do the Democrats have an answer for this? Do they
Speaker 1: even pretend to have an answer to the question? Do
Speaker 1: they have anything at all? Can they offer us anything
Speaker 1: at all in this realm? The answer? I'm wondering, Maybe
Speaker 1: they do. I know that they have a lot of
Speaker 1: postures that they take. I know that they want to
Speaker 1: sound like they're very humanitarian and they're so concerned and
Speaker 1: they care so much about the poor and the downtrodden. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: as Democrats who have destroyed most of the major urban
Speaker 1: centers that they've been in soul government control of for
Speaker 1: the last oh, you know, fifty years. The Democrats who
Speaker 1: have destroyed places and made life more miserable with their
Speaker 1: governance and with their policies everywhere from you know, Baltimore
Speaker 1: to Detroit too, you know, you name it. Democrats have
Speaker 1: a track record that they really should shy away from
Speaker 1: running on. But nonetheless, uh, they think that all they
Speaker 1: have to do is make this an issue of who
Speaker 1: cares more well. I want to know what should we do?
Speaker 1: And the Democrats do not have an answer to the question.
Speaker 1: If we take this seven thousand, what do we do
Speaker 1: with the next seven thousand? And what does that mean
Speaker 1: for our overall immigration policy? Are we a nation of laws?
Speaker 1: Do we have sovereignty at all anymore? If enough people
Speaker 1: want to come here and they form a a mass
Speaker 1: of human beings that are moving physically to our border,
Speaker 1: do we have to let them in? Do we have
Speaker 1: to process them and then give them later on a oh,
Speaker 1: show up for your your court hearing? Five years from now.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I'm sure a lot of them are going
Speaker 1: to show up for that. And if they do, I'm
Speaker 1: sure a lot of them are gonna say, I've been
Speaker 1: here for five years, I haven't broken the lag, and
Speaker 1: now I get to stay, and the A c l
Speaker 1: U and a whole army of activist lawyer groups will
Speaker 1: come right to their side and say that's right, they
Speaker 1: get to stay. Must feel pretty weird be one of
Speaker 1: the people that are currently waiting to go through our
Speaker 1: legal immigration process. It's expensive, it's time consuming, it's annoying,
Speaker 1: and it must not particularly feel a fair to people
Speaker 1: that have already gone through our immigration system to become Americans,
Speaker 1: to become permanent residents of this country. They must feel like, Wow,
Speaker 1: Democrats don't really have much respect for what I went through,
Speaker 1: especially for those of you who have become citizens. Democrats
Speaker 1: just want to give this away as long as it
Speaker 1: benefits them, as long as it strengthens their electoral prospects.
Speaker 1: The Democrats can't answer simple questions on this because it's
Speaker 1: not about principles and we all know it. They should
Speaker 1: be at least forced to answer these questions. What should
Speaker 1: be done with the caravan what should we do with
Speaker 1: the next one? I promise you if they had to
Speaker 1: answer those and then enough Americans heard them, they would
Speaker 1: get wiped out in the mid terms. We got more
Speaker 1: on this coming up. Stay with me. Is it demagoguery?
Speaker 1: How would you describe this? It is demagoguery, Brian. It
Speaker 1: is also I believe, racism and natives. I'm really pandering
Speaker 1: to the fears of Trump supporters and Fox News your
Speaker 1: worst who tend to be older, white males who are
Speaker 1: alarmed about the supposed invasion of dark skinned newcomers coming
Speaker 1: to America. I mean, the threat is entirely bogus, because,
Speaker 1: in fact, border crossings have declined dramatically in the last
Speaker 1: eighteen years. Down there is not this massive army of
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. And these people are not even illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: They are refugees who are seeking legal admission to the
Speaker 1: United States. It must be a debasing thing to have
Speaker 1: once called yourself as Max boot has, to have once
Speaker 1: called yourself a conservative, and to have just completely become
Speaker 1: a turn coat and a boot liquor of the left wing,
Speaker 1: which is what this guy is. Now. It's going on CNN.
Speaker 1: Say whatever he has to say, Just trash. I guess
Speaker 1: all those people that he was writing for all those years, right,
Speaker 1: all those years, this guy was building a career writing
Speaker 1: about and four and two conservatives at least in his mind.
Speaker 1: He basically was, let's go to war with foreign countries that,
Speaker 1: you know, we think we can remake in our image.
Speaker 1: I mean, a very a very aggressive interventionist foreign policy guy.
Speaker 1: Uh and not really known for much else. But but
Speaker 1: at least he was thought of as on the right.
Speaker 1: He was despised by his colleagues at the Council on
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations. I actually knew him when I was an
Speaker 1: intern there, believe it or not, and he was not
Speaker 1: liked by the other people that worked there at all,
Speaker 1: which I attributed to his conservatism at the time, meaning
Speaker 1: I thought they didn't like him because of conservative and
Speaker 1: I was maybe it's just a jerk then too, Maybe
Speaker 1: it was just always a jerk. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: he's acting like a jerk now. I mean to say
Speaker 1: that opposition to a seven thousand's gonna be ten thousand
Speaker 1: probably by the end of the week. But a seven
Speaker 1: thousand person caravan, uh, concerns about that just waltzing in
Speaker 1: the United States seven thousand people in one one fell swoop.
Speaker 1: It's gonna take probably a couple of weeks, probably three
Speaker 1: or four weeks, that they're really on foot the hallway,
Speaker 1: which I doubt. I have a feeling that there'll be
Speaker 1: some busses and trains and things that all of a
Speaker 1: sudden are brought into service here to help them. Oh,
Speaker 1: it was all just spontaneous, they say, yeah, right, But
Speaker 1: whatever it is that they get to the border, we're
Speaker 1: just supposed to let them into the country. This is so,
Speaker 1: it's so intellectually lazy. And for somebody who fancies himself
Speaker 1: in intellect is Max Max Boot does, it just goes
Speaker 1: to show you how how pathetic the whole thing is,
Speaker 1: but intellectually lazy to say that it's fear of brown
Speaker 1: people that's the problem here. Nobody would want seven thousand.
Speaker 1: I don't care if seven thousand Canadians line up on
Speaker 1: the border and want to come into the country. We
Speaker 1: have sovereignty, we have laws. This is a country. They
Speaker 1: must be enforced, all right. This is not it should
Speaker 1: not be. It is up for debate, unfortunately, but it
Speaker 1: should not be up for debate. We should be able
Speaker 1: to determine who comes and goes from our country. If
Speaker 1: we can't determine that, I would note, then then what
Speaker 1: right do we have to expect people in this country
Speaker 1: to pay the taxes that have demanded of and including
Speaker 1: global we have extra terror ratorial taxation as American citizens.
Speaker 1: You could live in a foreign country, they're still gonna
Speaker 1: tax you. Okay, that's that's the way America plays the game.
Speaker 1: But if you want to come and go as you please, come,
Speaker 1: make money, go and bringing money back home, send money
Speaker 1: back home without it ever being taxed. No, no, nothing
Speaker 1: about that. They have no problem with that. This is
Speaker 1: a scam. It's a scam, and it's not about fear
Speaker 1: of anyone's skin color. And to say so is disgusting
Speaker 1: and it's a slander. But he knows that. And CNN
Speaker 1: audience is hitting home. Yeah yeah, that's right. Trump's racist.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, like a bunch of imbeciles, a bunch of
Speaker 1: stupid hamsters hitting the pedal to get their little pellet there,
Speaker 1: a little pellet of left wing garbage. That's what this
Speaker 1: is all about. That thing he said, by the way,
Speaker 1: about about border crossings are down the last ten years.
Speaker 1: Maybe he's just not very smart. Border crossings compared to
Speaker 1: what and when. And I would note that there's a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount that aren't border crossings that stay in the
Speaker 1: true you have a half a million visa overstays every year.
Speaker 1: Does he realize that a large percentage of them are
Speaker 1: here beyond three sixty five days, which means that they're
Speaker 1: long term visa overstays. That's right, people fly into the
Speaker 1: country now and just stay. So that the notion of
Speaker 1: and we're talking about illegal border crossings. Guess what, they're illegal.
Speaker 1: We don't know how many there are, but this is
Speaker 1: yet another talking about This is how you have people
Speaker 1: that are supposed to be smart that will say we
Speaker 1: have eleven million people, and I say, well, we've had
Speaker 1: eleven million in the last ten years. And every every
Speaker 1: border patrol officer I've talked to you, and I've spoken
Speaker 1: to many, will tell you that at every border sector
Speaker 1: they're catching people crossing in the country illegally all the time,
Speaker 1: all the time. So the numbers stays static even though
Speaker 1: there are people coming in all that. This is like
Speaker 1: saying I have a cup of water and it's the same.
Speaker 1: It's not getting any more full over time, even though
Speaker 1: there is every day a drip into that water glass.
Speaker 1: Maybe some of you have like a scientific explanation of
Speaker 1: evaporation or something, but you know what I'm saying, it's
Speaker 1: obviously growing. There is not the outflow that they say
Speaker 1: there is. Okay, people are not said, Oh, they're the
Speaker 1: economy's bats. They've all returned home this garbage. There's twenty
Speaker 1: million illegals in the country. There's twenty Look at the numbers.
Speaker 1: Look at what we know. They're twenty million illegals in
Speaker 1: America right now. And everyone's terrified of that coming out
Speaker 1: before we give a mass amnesty, because then the American
Speaker 1: people will realize that we have been betrayed, we've been
Speaker 1: lied to, and the business owning class in this country
Speaker 1: and the politicians who rely on them as donors have
Speaker 1: traded our sovereignty for cheap labor, and the Democrats have
Speaker 1: traded our sovereignty for voters. And you said, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: illegals can't vote one. We don't really know who's voting too.
Speaker 1: By being the party of illegals, Democrats have also become
Speaker 1: the party of immigrants and Latinos. They have made that transition,
Speaker 1: and so it's a it is a pure power play
Speaker 1: for them and for Republicans, it's just well the donors,
Speaker 1: you know, they want they want people. I love his articles.
Speaker 1: They can't find people to take the jobs once the
Speaker 1: legals are gone. Okay, pay more money, stop breaking the law,
Speaker 1: and pay more money. You know, these these I I
Speaker 1: started to sound a little bit like I'm a little
Speaker 1: too friendly towards the state here. But you know, America
Speaker 1: has rule of law and roads and and you know,
Speaker 1: courts and and fire and police and all these things
Speaker 1: that we do need to pay some taxes and to
Speaker 1: avoid taxes, to pay to your workers, and to let
Speaker 1: them get away with generally not paying taxes because it's
Speaker 1: cheaper for you. It's cheating. Is cheating, and this should
Speaker 1: be in forced. It should not be allowed to continue on.
Speaker 1: But the opposition to the migrant caravan is not rooted
Speaker 1: in racism, and to say so is unfair and dishonest
Speaker 1: and despicable. But you notice this is gonna be the primary,
Speaker 1: the primary they talk about it. Um. Meanwhile, on the
Speaker 1: other side is you got Representative Louis Gohmer, who's uh,
Speaker 1: he's not holding back at all. Play eleven. All of
Speaker 1: these people trying to force their way in. It's called
Speaker 1: an Asian and thank god we have a president that
Speaker 1: will stand up to an invasion like this. I've heard
Speaker 1: people on TV, so called experts say, well, you can't
Speaker 1: use the military because positive commentitus. Look, that normally prevents
Speaker 1: the military from being used against its own citizens. It
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with using the military to stop
Speaker 1: an invasion from another country. So there's nothing unconstitutional or
Speaker 1: illegal about the president doing what Woodrow Wilson did. Put
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of people on the border and make
Speaker 1: sure nobody forces their way in. And you know you
Speaker 1: were talking about coming through ports of entry. The president's
Speaker 1: got to close the border until this threat is over,
Speaker 1: because it is a threat. We know this is a tactic,
Speaker 1: we know it's going on, we know it continues to
Speaker 1: go on, and it's you can't deal with it other
Speaker 1: than to just stop the whole group and close the border. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you got to close the border. Got to close the border.
Speaker 1: Or you can listen to the the chattering class, people
Speaker 1: like Alison Camera Rock Allison Camasn who has stuff like
Speaker 1: this to offer. Plate. If you come to the border
Speaker 1: today with a child, doesn't even have to be your
Speaker 1: own child. You will get entrance into our country. You
Speaker 1: will jump the line from people who are waiting immigrants
Speaker 1: in this country? Are family members waiting in line? And
Speaker 1: will you get just just just just a fact check?
Speaker 1: When you get a luxury car, what'd you say? Well,
Speaker 1: you get a luxury car given to you. You get
Speaker 1: all kinds of what the Democrats want to do, and
Speaker 1: every one of these things is give them. You get Obamacare,
Speaker 1: you get a telephone, you get all kinds of things.
Speaker 1: I don't know about a car. I haven't heard about
Speaker 1: a car, but I mean you get all kinds of programs.
Speaker 1: You don't get a Rolls Royce. You don't get a
Speaker 1: luxury car. George Soros doesn't meet you at the border
Speaker 1: handing out millions of dollars. I don't know if this
Speaker 1: for the caravan, Allison, who's paying for the caravan? I'd
Speaker 1: like to know. You should put a reporter on it.
Speaker 1: Who's paid? We have a reporter on it. Let me
Speaker 1: question you a question, Let me answer journalists along the way.
Speaker 1: This is not No one is paying for the caravan.
Speaker 1: Poor people are marching hundred miles. Matt, Matt, Matt. Are
Speaker 1: they going to get to Mercedes beds? Matt Are they
Speaker 1: going to be given a may Bok? Very very pricey?
Speaker 1: My driver prefers it. Get out of here, Camarata. What
Speaker 1: is this garbage? What the heck is saying they get
Speaker 1: a luxury car? Soltos is not waiting at the board
Speaker 1: that are handing out the million dollar bills. No, he
Speaker 1: is not. That is true because I don't think I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone's handing up million dollar bills. Um, all right,
Speaker 1: We've got so much more on this, and then where
Speaker 1: the status elections are and Kip Strasso from the Wallstree Journal,
Speaker 1: that's all coming up. What we have said is one
Speaker 1: to replace ICE and put it inside the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice and organization that it would would it please have
Speaker 1: fidelity to the law. Well, will you honor a request
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump's ICE agency if they provided detainer request?
Speaker 1: Will you honor it? As governor? Will you work with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? You can proceed with your time. They won't
Speaker 1: answer the Jake. That's important because that's what happens when
Speaker 1: somebody's a criminal. I've been a prosecutor, I've worked with
Speaker 1: law enforcement. When they're in the system, they're convicted that
Speaker 1: maybe they served ten years, but it comes time to
Speaker 1: come out, there's a detainer request from ICE. You either
Speaker 1: turn him over to ICE or release them into the community.
Speaker 1: That's the only two options. Andrew will not answer the
Speaker 1: question that tells me he would be willing to release
Speaker 1: them back. He won't answer the question that was gill
Speaker 1: him and DeSantis. De Santis was the one who's pushing
Speaker 1: him on that issue, both candidates for uh uh, for
Speaker 1: the governor of Florida, and and trying to you know,
Speaker 1: trying to get that last push here as we get
Speaker 1: very close and people are gonna look at Florida, They're
Speaker 1: gonna say, there's a Bellweather state. This tells you a
Speaker 1: lot about the direction of the country for the mid
Speaker 1: term election. Are going to say that this is you know,
Speaker 1: really it depends if the Democrats win it. If Gillum wins,
Speaker 1: who is the mayor of tallahassee another person who I
Speaker 1: don't think they're going to run him in twenty but
Speaker 1: they see him in a young, charismatic Obama esque mold.
Speaker 1: So a lot of Democrats very excited about about gill
Speaker 1: Him and you know who's basically socialist. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: pretty he's pretty open about he wants single payer, and
Speaker 1: he wants to raise taxes, although he won't say that,
Speaker 1: you'll ask him how do you pay for us a
Speaker 1: bunch of things? And you know we'll find some ways.
Speaker 1: But De Santis was pushing him here on the issue
Speaker 1: of ice detainer requests. And notice how Gilliam would not answer,
Speaker 1: because what this really is a question about sanctuary city policy.
Speaker 1: Sanctuary cities do not and now there's some variations here
Speaker 1: depending on which jurisdiction are the sanctuary cities as a
Speaker 1: as a general rule do not adhere to or do
Speaker 1: not honor I taining request. What that means is when
Speaker 1: someone is already in custody of law enforcement and Immigrations
Speaker 1: and Customs enforcement is informed that that person is in custody,
Speaker 1: they send a detained request if they want that person
Speaker 1: to be turned over to them for the purposes of deportation,
Speaker 1: they refuse. Sanctuary city jurisdictions refuse to do that. And
Speaker 1: what do Santist knows, and he had been a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: is that that means that there are people who are
Speaker 1: a danger to the community, who are convicted criminals, people
Speaker 1: who have served sentences, including sometimes for violent crimes, and
Speaker 1: local jurisdictions because of the politics around illegals and because
Speaker 1: of the pandering to generally the Latino community by Democrats,
Speaker 1: jurisdictions will not honor these detained requests, which means that
Speaker 1: people who are criminals and illegal aliens get released back
Speaker 1: out into the general population and can become repeat offenders.
Speaker 1: And this is really of do you believe that law
Speaker 1: enforcement should work together? You know that I cannot think
Speaker 1: of another issue where if the FBI requested UH, for example,
Speaker 1: the fb A requested help from a SHAREFF for local
Speaker 1: law enforcement, they wouldn't just not get help, they would
Speaker 1: be stonewall. We refuse to help you as a matter
Speaker 1: of policy, right, and people realize that there's a lot
Speaker 1: of crossover. There's a lot of ways, unfortunately, but it
Speaker 1: is true that even local crimes can get tangled up
Speaker 1: in the federal web. And so there and just the
Speaker 1: FBI is viewed as a legitimate law enforcement body by
Speaker 1: most folks, and so there's a lot of cooperation between those, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, I here, I here's a perfect example. I
Speaker 1: worked in the m I p D. Intelligence Division. I
Speaker 1: was sitting sitted with seated with pardon me, UH, sitted
Speaker 1: with FBI agents, d e A agents, people from all
Speaker 1: these different federal Immigrations and Customs enforcement, all these different
Speaker 1: agencies were all sitting together because stuff that will come
Speaker 1: on my radar would also be on their radar, and
Speaker 1: we work together as a fusion center. That's what I
Speaker 1: was doing. That's my my and of course also on
Speaker 1: the federal kind of terrorism side in particular, but we
Speaker 1: understand that there's a lot of crossover law enforcement. Well,
Speaker 1: somebody who is a drug dealer who is also an
Speaker 1: illegal alien is causing problems for the law in multiple ways,
Speaker 1: and one law enforcement agency should support the other law
Speaker 1: enforcement agencies legitimate law enforcement functions. What gill him is
Speaker 1: telling you without telling you is that he prefers lawlessness
Speaker 1: because it is politically advantageous and he won't say it,
Speaker 1: but De Santis was right to push him on this one.
Speaker 1: And this then goes to a a refrain that you've
Speaker 1: heard a lot from the left, and I really hope
Speaker 1: becomes a huge problem for them in the in the
Speaker 1: mid terms, which is remember when abolish ice. Abolish ice.
Speaker 1: That was a thing that they were chanting all summer,
Speaker 1: not reform ice, not change the law or change the
Speaker 1: policy at the border so that we can have a
Speaker 1: more efficient way to transfer people so that they are
Speaker 1: with their children, or they're at least close to their
Speaker 1: children and know they'll be reunited. You know what, it
Speaker 1: wasn't have a serious adult conversation about this. It was
Speaker 1: bolesh Ice. It was street protest activism slogans in place
Speaker 1: of a serious adult policy discussion. Well, that was a
Speaker 1: reflection where the Democrat Party is on this issue, which
Speaker 1: is a kind of childishness around it. They're they're un serious,
Speaker 1: They are fundamentally un serious about dealing with immigration and
Speaker 1: enforcement of immigration laws. And they also will say things
Speaker 1: that are just bizarre, like, oh, put Ice under d
Speaker 1: o J. Okay, so put a put in massive federal
Speaker 1: bureaucracy that's in DHS. Put it in another massive federal bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: The whole point here is that the point they're making
Speaker 1: is that Ice will not in fact adhere to the law,
Speaker 1: but the FBI will. After what we've seen with the
Speaker 1: Russia stuff, does anyone really believe that? I mean, do
Speaker 1: you think you think putting the FBI in charge of them,
Speaker 1: are putting the d o J in charge of them
Speaker 1: is really going to make things better. Uh, these these
Speaker 1: are all these are just different executive branch agencies. There's
Speaker 1: there's no reason to think that that bureaucratic shuffling will
Speaker 1: make anything better. But but Elizabeth Warren goes even further here.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, who still thinks as delusional as she is,
Speaker 1: as crazy as she is, she still thinks she's got
Speaker 1: a real political future in the national stage, you know,
Speaker 1: just as an aside here, I think I've heard some
Speaker 1: people say that maybe her plan was to do such
Speaker 1: a uh pull pull, such a dumb move, that we
Speaker 1: will become numb to the stupidity of it later on,
Speaker 1: and then it can't be used against her because she's
Speaker 1: already just fallen so flat on her face with it.
Speaker 1: I I don't know if that's really possible, but that
Speaker 1: I've heard people saying that. But here's what she says,
Speaker 1: which is also a fall flat on her face stupid point.
Speaker 1: Here's what she says about immigrations and customs enforcement. This
Speaker 1: was just this week play es X. I want to
Speaker 1: see this agency reformed because an agency that can't tell
Speaker 1: the difference in the risk between a seven year old
Speaker 1: girl between a woman going in for brain cancer surgery,
Speaker 1: and a terrorist or a criminal is an agency that
Speaker 1: is not working. It is not making us safer, and
Speaker 1: it sure doesn't reflect our value. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the hect she thinks she's talking about here, about a
Speaker 1: terrorist versus somebody from brain surgery? Who who? What straw
Speaker 1: man argument did she come up with here? Exactly? This
Speaker 1: makes no sense. This is just bizarro land stuff. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's nothing about this that I can point to and
Speaker 1: say yeah, yeah, and I know where she's going with that.
Speaker 1: I know what she was trying for. It's just like
Speaker 1: she's on another planet. But remember that, because we do
Speaker 1: have a porous border, um and because we do have
Speaker 1: an inability to control the population flow into this country
Speaker 1: in a meaningful way, you also have over seventy thousand
Speaker 1: people you're dying from drug overdoses, and the drugs are
Speaker 1: coming from Mexico. Folks, The drugs are coming primarily from Mexico.
Speaker 1: The lethal ones are coming in across our southern border
Speaker 1: in huge numbers, and they're killing tens of thousands of Americans.
Speaker 1: This is the most urgent security threat that we face.
Speaker 1: This is the most urgent public health crisis that we face.
Speaker 1: And it is because of our southern border. You think
Speaker 1: that that would mean it gets higher up on the
Speaker 1: attention list, but apparently not. Apparently not. Remember the the
Speaker 1: Immigrations and Customers Enforcement Agency just recently seized fentanyl that
Speaker 1: was enough in terms of dosage to kill five million Americans.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike sent me that. So that's a lot. You
Speaker 1: would think that that would get them a little bit
Speaker 1: more credibility from the left with oh, yeah, they're actually
Speaker 1: keeping they are keeping us safe. They are doing a
Speaker 1: lot for us. But this is just a power play
Speaker 1: for them. They'll say whatever they have to say as
Speaker 1: long as they have to in order to get restored
Speaker 1: into a majority in the House and to then bring
Speaker 1: about amnesty that will essentially eradicate the Republican Party. That's
Speaker 1: the goal that they are going for. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a Senate race that I don't think it's getting nearly
Speaker 1: enough attention. You got the Beto obsessed media talking all
Speaker 1: about how he's gonna beat ted Cruz when now that's
Speaker 1: just laughable. But there's another race that maybe deserves a
Speaker 1: second look here, at least for what it tells us
Speaker 1: about the Democratic Party, if not what it tells us
Speaker 1: about the possibility of this race going for the Republicans.
Speaker 1: Kim Strassel joins us now to talk about what's going
Speaker 1: on in New Jersey. She's a piece up on the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal where she is on the editorial board
Speaker 1: smiling at corruption Democrats try to save Bob and Nndez
Speaker 1: months after his bipartisan as admonishment. Uh, Kim, great to
Speaker 1: have you back. It's great to be here, all right.
Speaker 1: What's going on in in the Garden State, which I
Speaker 1: always feel a certain love hate relationship for the New
Speaker 1: York or what's going on there? Yeah, Well, as you said,
Speaker 1: you know, what's notable here is that while the entire
Speaker 1: media is still obsessing over Texas, where those numbers look
Speaker 1: as though Ted Cruzes is definitely pulling away from Beato Rourke,
Speaker 1: there's a race that's even within a smaller margin of error.
Speaker 1: And in New Jersey where the Democrats Bob Menendez, who,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, um, he was censored by his colleagues,
Speaker 1: that rather admonished by his colleague back earlier this year, Um,
Speaker 1: after he had been found to have accepted all sorts
Speaker 1: of gifts from a man who is a now convicted
Speaker 1: sellon who ran one of the biggest medicare frauds on
Speaker 1: the government at all time. Um. Not only was he
Speaker 1: accepting a lot of gifts from this guy and not
Speaker 1: acknowledging them under Senate ethics rules, but he was working
Speaker 1: on behalf of this guy to help him with his
Speaker 1: business interests in Washington, including going so far as to
Speaker 1: lobby to the Health and Human Services Secretary on his behalf.
Speaker 1: So um, he was actually indicted for this. The FBI ultimately,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, the Department of Justice ultimately dropped the charges
Speaker 1: after the Supreme Court change the standard on what it
Speaker 1: would take to convict him. But he was admonished, and
Speaker 1: he's now facing a very tough race against Bob Hugan,
Speaker 1: a Republican businessman who's been highlighting this, and it's it's
Speaker 1: really driving up Menendez is unfavorable. I have to say,
Speaker 1: there's a deafening silence, Kim from so many of the Oh,
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner must have some shady relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: I hear there's are people in the media all the time,
Speaker 1: and then I say, okay, well what is it? And
Speaker 1: then there's no, there is nothing. There's all these whispers
Speaker 1: of corruption around Trump. Meanwhile, Menendez, who you know, whether
Speaker 1: people want to just parse out the legality of what
Speaker 1: he did or not. And what he did was gross
Speaker 1: and the guy he was associating with even grosser, and
Speaker 1: they're just hoping to push this guy over the line.
Speaker 1: For the Democrats, yeah, I mean, Democrats are actually out
Speaker 1: there running a campaign focused on so called Republican corruption.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi this summer actually handed out to her members
Speaker 1: a toolkit of talking points about how they could supposedly
Speaker 1: go after Republican corruption Trump and all sorts of others issues,
Speaker 1: none of which, as you have said, there's any real
Speaker 1: evidence for. But in the meantime, they just have closed
Speaker 1: their eyes to this and in some cases actually are
Speaker 1: outright helping. I mean, look at the Democrats. That's why
Speaker 1: I called the column Smiling at Corruption the biggest superpack
Speaker 1: out there, a majority superpack helping. Senate Democrats just decided
Speaker 1: to reroute three million dollars to help Bob Menendez in
Speaker 1: his race, money that they're taking away from even more
Speaker 1: important races for them where they're trying to defend seats
Speaker 1: um in places where Trump won because he's in so
Speaker 1: much trouble. But in essence, this is a democratic party saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, we're okay with corruption. Um. Yes, there's
Speaker 1: a whole trail of evidence. It's very clear, in fact,
Speaker 1: the senators on records saying that he engaged in corruption.
Speaker 1: But we're still gonna do everything we can to return
Speaker 1: him to office. Yeah. And I have to say that
Speaker 1: there are two areas where I see a tremendous hypoxicy
Speaker 1: the left. You know. One of them is on this
Speaker 1: uh as on the notion of corruption, as much as
Speaker 1: you pointed out, is is a talking point against the Republicans,
Speaker 1: but you have so many Democrats. You start to think
Speaker 1: about all the Democrats that have gone to prison and
Speaker 1: just in the last oh four or five years for
Speaker 1: incredibly obvious and very shady corruption, and that never gets
Speaker 1: brought up in any of this discussion. As I said,
Speaker 1: there's always this vague Oh Trump must you know, someone
Speaker 1: starts telling me about the emolument's clause. Kim, you know
Speaker 1: that that tends to be what I hear about. But
Speaker 1: also on on the notion of mobs, I I have
Speaker 1: to say, I am I have been surprised, and I
Speaker 1: take a very dim view of much of the uh
Speaker 1: of the journalist class, which I know, technically you definitely
Speaker 1: are a journalist. I'm something else, but I'm pretty close
Speaker 1: to journal land. But most journalists, I think, act in
Speaker 1: a way that is rarely surprising to me. But on
Speaker 1: the mobs, Kim, I've seen a lot of people that say,
Speaker 1: you know, they have no other they have no other
Speaker 1: way to make their case. And these are people that
Speaker 1: write for the Washington Post. It's it's crazy. Look, it's
Speaker 1: absolutely unacceptable. Okay, the whole reason we have civil society,
Speaker 1: we have debate is so that we don't have mob
Speaker 1: rule just because your side didn't win an election, just
Speaker 1: because your person didn't get in office, or just because
Speaker 1: you lost your Supreme Court nomination. There's absolutely nothing written
Speaker 1: in any of the formal or informal rules of our
Speaker 1: society that give you the right to chase Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: or Ted Cruz out of a hound them at a restaurant. Um.
Speaker 1: This is a fact precisely why we have a ballot
Speaker 1: box and elections. And anybody who's out there, whether it's
Speaker 1: on CNN, I've seen a couple on there or anyway saying, well,
Speaker 1: a it's not a mob and be they're just saying
Speaker 1: what they think. We all know that's not true. Um.
Speaker 1: Saying what you think is when you write an op
Speaker 1: edit or a letter to a newspaper, UM, or you
Speaker 1: go to vote. But you know, harassing people on the
Speaker 1: street is not. And if that's the best they've got,
Speaker 1: then Conservatives should actually feel pretty good that they're winning
Speaker 1: on the policy. Merors, Now, I know that it's it's
Speaker 1: really tight, and soda to ask you to make your prediction,
Speaker 1: I mean, who really knows. But just in the minute
Speaker 1: or so we have left year, Kim, how do you
Speaker 1: where what's the main dynamic you see right now in
Speaker 1: the House race that's going to determine whether it ends
Speaker 1: up being the Republicans of the Democrats who win the day.
Speaker 1: But I think the most important thing, which you won't
Speaker 1: hear anyone talking about, especially on the mainstream media, is
Speaker 1: how different this is today than it was just three
Speaker 1: weeks ago. Okay, we can already say with complete definite
Speaker 1: proof that the Democrats have blown it to a certain extent. Uh,
Speaker 1: they were talking about a wave three weeks ago. They
Speaker 1: messed up with Kavanaugh. It's not going to be a wave.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna come down to five seats one
Speaker 1: way or the other. Right, whoever does win, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to have a huge majority, but I think Republicans
Speaker 1: are still in the alright, Kim stressed everybody of the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal check out her columns and also her book,
Speaker 1: The Intimidation Game. Kim, always appreciate you making the time
Speaker 1: for us come back soon. Thank you. Buck. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: think he was spot on there with the it's gonna
Speaker 1: be five seats. It's gonna be such a narrow margin.
Speaker 1: I don't think that we're gonna know. We're certainly not
Speaker 1: gonna know who controls the House by the time. Um,
Speaker 1: although you should listen for all of the show election
Speaker 1: night obviously, but we're not gonna know who controls the House.
Speaker 1: I think, um, by you know the time this show
Speaker 1: is is over. Um, I think it's gonna stretch. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess the polls closed around eight, and there's no
Speaker 1: way we would know. Okay, yeah, it's not even close,
Speaker 1: but we might not even know till I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe the next morning. It's gonna it's gonna be drawn
Speaker 1: out and it's gonna be very very tight, which just
Speaker 1: goes to tell you. You know, they've been telling us
Speaker 1: that Trump is a fascist and destroying America, and now
Speaker 1: they're praying and hoping that they can not have a
Speaker 1: blue wave, but a little blue ripple, just a little bit.
Speaker 1: It's crazy right now. You've got the left freaking out,
Speaker 1: chasing people out of restaurants, screaming at little old ladies
Speaker 1: and anybody that shows up at a Trump rally, and
Speaker 1: whereas a maga hat. You've got all kinds of nonsense
Speaker 1: going on about the post Kavanaugh rage from all the
Speaker 1: different progressives. How about we all just stop that crap
Speaker 1: and drink some delicious coffee. How about that for an idea,
Speaker 1: because that's what I do every day. I drink Black
Speaker 1: Rifle coffee every morning. I drink it full on black
Speaker 1: because it is delicious, high qualities, small batch, roast to
Speaker 1: order coffee, and I've made converts all over my office.
Speaker 1: I'm like, why are you drinking that commie swill when
Speaker 1: you could be drinking Black Rifle, A company founded by
Speaker 1: veterans and that's all about delicious coffee. Go check it
Speaker 1: out for yourself. Nothing cures a bad attitude quite like
Speaker 1: starting your day with the most American coffee ever Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: received fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot com slash buck. Right now, rife will pale
Speaker 1: very well. And I have not satisfied with whatever. That's trong.
Speaker 1: I know the audio wasn't great there, but no one's
Speaker 1: audio was great because it's the president speaking with a
Speaker 1: with an engine going to the background. Gave a press conference,
Speaker 1: to the impromptu press conference talking about the Kashogi situation.
Speaker 1: Kogi murder, we can call it that now. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've known that all along, but now even the Saladi
Speaker 1: is like, yeah, he was murdered. He was murdered, and
Speaker 1: the Saudis have been caught up here in the Saudiast
Speaker 1: are lying. We've known that really all along, but now
Speaker 1: it's quite obvious that they're lying. Um. They admit that
Speaker 1: there was a as they said, a struggle, a fistfight
Speaker 1: in the consulate with the security team and Kashogi, and
Speaker 1: that he was in fact killed. They claim uh not.
Speaker 1: They claimed that it was of course not planned. So
Speaker 1: you had a a guy whose expertise is in being
Speaker 1: a coroner, i e. The guy that does the investigations
Speaker 1: about bodies and would know, for example, what they look
Speaker 1: for in a forensics I'm sorry, he's a He is
Speaker 1: a forensics investigator in a corner, so would know what
Speaker 1: they'd be looking for in a crime scene situation. That's big.
Speaker 1: And that had a bone saw with them, another really
Speaker 1: big coincidence that we haven't had any real explanation for.
Speaker 1: And you add all these things together and oh yes,
Speaker 1: by the way, they also tell us that they don't
Speaker 1: know where the body is. I'm pretty sure that someone
Speaker 1: in the Saudi team knows where the body is. In fact,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure that we all know that what happened
Speaker 1: was that the uh, the Saudi team that was assigned
Speaker 1: to to get him, cut him up and took the
Speaker 1: body back to Saudi Arabia in pieces. This was a
Speaker 1: mafia style hit that was ordered by the head of
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. Now they're going to claim that it wasn't
Speaker 1: in fact that the head of Saudi Arabia that knew
Speaker 1: about this or that did this. They're going to tell
Speaker 1: us that this was someone else. This was you know,
Speaker 1: they're saying it's a rogue operation. Um, we obviously don't
Speaker 1: believe that. We don't accept that explanation of things. But
Speaker 1: I would just note that, you know, they they they
Speaker 1: will do as much as they can to get away
Speaker 1: with this for as long as they can. Uh. And
Speaker 1: that means delaying. That means stretching this out as far
Speaker 1: as they can. That means, you know, trying to push
Speaker 1: a narrative of events here that will just even though
Speaker 1: nobody will really believe them, will give them some level
Speaker 1: of plausible deniability. Uh. And I have to say that.
Speaker 1: You know, now we get into what do we do
Speaker 1: about it? Okay, so the Saudias, the Saudias are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: they're at the o J part of this whole situation,
Speaker 1: where where o J was looking for the real killers.
Speaker 1: You know, the Saudias are at that phase of this
Speaker 1: where it's very very apparent that no one believes them
Speaker 1: they killed this guy, and now we're all supposed to
Speaker 1: figure out what we do next about this. As I
Speaker 1: have been saying to you, this has been receiving much
Speaker 1: greater focus in the media because they use this as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to go after Trump right at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, what happens with Kashogi is not really
Speaker 1: that much our business or our problem. We can give
Speaker 1: a diplomatic statement about it. We can say this was terrible,
Speaker 1: you should never have done this, but we are not
Speaker 1: going to prosecute anyone. We don't have any mechanism even
Speaker 1: for prosecuting anyone. Uh, this was a crime committed on
Speaker 1: Turkish soil, so we don't have any jurisdiction here to
Speaker 1: speak of. It was also done in a consulate, so
Speaker 1: it was done on Saudi soil, on Turkish soil. So
Speaker 1: this is a diplomatic issue. This is between nation states.
Speaker 1: The guy was not a US citizen. Now I know,
Speaker 1: he was a green card older, he was a permanent resident.
Speaker 1: A lot of people focus in on that, but he's
Speaker 1: still not a citizen. He held foreign citizenship. So, you know,
Speaker 1: why is this the president situation primarily to handle? You know,
Speaker 1: why is this something where the president of the United
Speaker 1: States is the one guy who is supposed to take
Speaker 1: definitive action and you know, we we know the answer,
Speaker 1: and the answer is that it's because the left wants
Speaker 1: to play this game of you know, Trump is terrible
Speaker 1: and Trump is a dictator and all this other stuff. Uh,
Speaker 1: and he loves dictators. Here's Obama's former public relations propagandas
Speaker 1: are from inside the White House, Ben Rhodes. And this
Speaker 1: is how dirty he's willing to be play clib five. Well,
Speaker 1: we're seeing here, Chris, is really the continuation of a
Speaker 1: profound realignment of American farm policy under Donald Trump, where
Speaker 1: we no longer speak up for democracy and human rights,
Speaker 1: we no longer speak up for journalists. Instead, we call
Speaker 1: them the enemy is and me of the state. And
Speaker 1: we're giving a green light not just to this Saudi
Speaker 1: regime but to any regime around the world who wants
Speaker 1: to harm dissidents, harm journalists because the most powerful democracy
Speaker 1: in the world is no longer on their side. I
Speaker 1: think it has with Jared, his son in law. He's
Speaker 1: been sort of his viceroy when it comes to dealings
Speaker 1: with the Arab world. I think he feels that somehow
Speaker 1: he's in bed with this royal family over there, that
Speaker 1: his sort of romanoff phony family. Uh, and their families
Speaker 1: seem to be locked together. Jared and his Crown Prince
Speaker 1: seemed to be in bed together politically, Yeah, I bed
Speaker 1: together quick, madgiwe oh my gosh, I don't know why anyone.
Speaker 1: I don't know why anyone listen to that guy just
Speaker 1: so desperate to hang on and be relevant. He must
Speaker 1: be good friends with the management at MSNBC. I don't
Speaker 1: know why people listen to him. It really don't. Among
Speaker 1: one of the worst analysts on TV, a total I
Speaker 1: believe he used to be a conservaty. He'll just say
Speaker 1: whatever he has to say to try and be relevant
Speaker 1: at any point in time. But you you had their
Speaker 1: two different versions of giant bull crap. Bull crap coming
Speaker 1: from Ben Rhodes. Is that this is Trump's fault, that
Speaker 1: the Kashogi murderer is because Trump calls CNN you know,
Speaker 1: the enemy of the people. I hate to break it
Speaker 1: to you, but you know there are journalists, there are
Speaker 1: propaganda apparatus ps I in countries where journalists are the
Speaker 1: enemy of the people. Straight up? Is the North Korean
Speaker 1: Ministry of Propaganda the enemy of the North Korean people? Yes?
Speaker 1: Is North Korean state media the enemy of the North
Speaker 1: Korean people, whether they nor or not. Yes, Same things
Speaker 1: true in Iran, Same things true in a lot of countries.
Speaker 1: Just being a journalist does not give you some moral superiority,
Speaker 1: which I know is a shock to all the swamp
Speaker 1: dwelling journalists around me here in Washington, d C. They
Speaker 1: really think that they're special. They don't want anyone to
Speaker 1: tell them otherwise. And this is he always always get
Speaker 1: the sense from all these journalist types, this is the
Speaker 1: only profession they could ever even consider having. You know
Speaker 1: that that the notion of showing up to a job
Speaker 1: and just doing something else to them once they've once
Speaker 1: they've tasted a certain level of success in journalism, is
Speaker 1: just it's horrifying to them. Work with the pleabs again.
Speaker 1: Oh no, many of them have never done that. By
Speaker 1: the way. They go right out of right out of school,
Speaker 1: right into some j program somewhere, and that's that's the
Speaker 1: pathway anyway. Uh, this is just idiocy though from Rhodes.
Speaker 1: And then you have this whole conspiracy theory about Kushner
Speaker 1: and Mohammad Been So Been Salmon where Kyeah Kushner. The
Speaker 1: Saudi is a very important strategic player in the Middle
Speaker 1: East right now. That's a fact. We don't get to
Speaker 1: ignore them. That's a fact No administration, no administration has
Speaker 1: ever stood up to the Saudis in a meaningful way
Speaker 1: for running one of the crappiest countries on earth despite
Speaker 1: all of its oil wealth. No administration, no president, including Obama,
Speaker 1: who is bowing, literally bowing to the Saudis. Okay, so
Speaker 1: everyone needs to just slow their role and chill out
Speaker 1: on this. Stop making this about cheap partisan points against Trump.
Speaker 1: That's all they want to do. They don't care about
Speaker 1: this guy because Shogi, they have a little more solidarity
Speaker 1: with him than would otherwise because he was not even
Speaker 1: a He wasn't journals, he was a columnist. The guy
Speaker 1: was as an opinion writer for them. Now I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that means that, you know, anything that should have
Speaker 1: happened to him, but the way they're talking about him,
Speaker 1: it's like he's, you know, he's one of them. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: as anybody who ever writes an opinion column anywhere, somebody
Speaker 1: that now gets special treatment in terms of the media's
Speaker 1: view of them. I can tell you this much. If
Speaker 1: it were a conservative who had been attacked, I mean
Speaker 1: they an American conservative who have been attacked somewhere else
Speaker 1: in the world, you hear a lot less outrage about this,
Speaker 1: just a fact. It is. Just if it were someone
Speaker 1: who are critical of fundamentalist Islam, and that was the
Speaker 1: primary attack that Islam in Saudi Arabia is a destructive, oppressive,
Speaker 1: tyrannical force. And the Saudis took that guy out there
Speaker 1: say well, you know, there's a lot of Islamophobia going
Speaker 1: on there. I mean, you know, they shouldn't they shouldn't
Speaker 1: have murdered him, but there you know a lot of Islamophobia. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: if you even bring up the Kasgi was and this
Speaker 1: is a fact, an Islamist, meaning he believed in political
Speaker 1: Islam and was very friendly and cozy with the Muslim brotherhood,
Speaker 1: It's like you're trampling on the man's grave. That's that's
Speaker 1: just telling the truth. He wasn't a Islamist. Nobody he
Speaker 1: wouldn't deny this if he were alive. Nobody denies this.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean he should have been brutally murdered. Oh I
Speaker 1: almost left out that. He also that they dressed somewhat
Speaker 1: up as a body double in his clothing after they
Speaker 1: had killed him to try to create footage of him leaving.
Speaker 1: So that was the plan they were going to try
Speaker 1: to They must not have known that the fiance was
Speaker 1: outside because they were going to try and say that
Speaker 1: he left and that they had no knowledge and that
Speaker 1: they were going to disappear him. That was the plan
Speaker 1: to disappear him, and they are just really, really dumb
Speaker 1: about it. Let me give you a little bit of
Speaker 1: intel agency insight here in terms of what I what
Speaker 1: I learned when I was in the CIA about how
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence often operates. This is a little bit of
Speaker 1: an inside baseball for you who that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of countries that are very effective.
Speaker 1: Their services are very effective at surveillance and at certain
Speaker 1: you know, regime security issues. That's that's generally what most
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies are. Their primary concern is right regime and
Speaker 1: keeping the people in power in power and stopping any
Speaker 1: threats against them. Most countries aren't really worried about foreign invasion.
Speaker 1: Most countries are worried about toppling from from the inside um,
Speaker 1: and they get very adept at dealing with that threat.
Speaker 1: But they also often operate in places where they can
Speaker 1: be really ham fisted. I guess that's kind of the
Speaker 1: wrong term for Saudi Arabia, but you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: They can be clumsy and sloppy and get away with it.
Speaker 1: And that's what I think happened here. The Saudias, the
Speaker 1: Saudi intelligence services, the Saudi police. It can be thuggish
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia, and can be thuggish in other Middle
Speaker 1: Eastern countries where they have a lot of sway, can't
Speaker 1: really be so thuggish in Turkey, and that may have
Speaker 1: been the miscalculation here. They thought that they could get
Speaker 1: away with this, and they're not used to operating on
Speaker 1: foreign soil where there's also a very by the way
Speaker 1: thuggish intelligence apparatus, apparatus that is at work. So a
Speaker 1: lot of intrigue here. We'll be right back. There's been
Speaker 1: a change in the last few months. People have started
Speaker 1: to realize that social media platforms are not a public utility.
Speaker 1: They're not there just for the free exchange of ideas.
Speaker 1: They are Internet companies, but they're also media outlets. They
Speaker 1: are platforms, and they make editorial decisions all the time.
Speaker 1: And guess what, the big ones out there are making
Speaker 1: editorial decisions that favored Democrats, progressives and the left, and
Speaker 1: they're doing it on a regular basis. You know this.
Speaker 1: You've heard about the shadow banning, you've heard about the
Speaker 1: d platform NG. How about we start our own social
Speaker 1: media platform where there's none of that stuff about bias,
Speaker 1: no conversational health, nothing like that at all. Snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: Is it? S n I p p y dot com.
Speaker 1: I have an account there. I post. You should be
Speaker 1: posting too. We're gonna work it into a roll call.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com. It's a place where the founders are
Speaker 1: all about the First Amendment, free expression and no censorship,
Speaker 1: no agenda ever. S n I p p y dot com.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com. Okay, Christmas, do you need to go
Speaker 1: in the same way that you came out today that
Speaker 1: we're organized in this camp game for our country. That's right, folks.
Speaker 1: The Beeto song b E t O instead of fly
Speaker 1: m c A wow it. I would say it's embarrassing,
Speaker 1: but it kind of goes beyond that to just astonishment.
Speaker 1: Why would people think this guy is so cool? What
Speaker 1: about what is there about him? I really think that
Speaker 1: this is the mainstream media has an ability to take
Speaker 1: people who aren't that impressive and through narrative creation, make
Speaker 1: them something of a pop culture icon in politics, the
Speaker 1: same way that they can take in the h entertainment
Speaker 1: industry somebody who's not really that talented to make them
Speaker 1: into a pop star. They can do that with politics
Speaker 1: on the media side of news and politics. I think
Speaker 1: that's what they've done with this beeto guy. I really
Speaker 1: don't get it. I'm I'm being completely honest with you. Look,
Speaker 1: with the Obama thing, I understood what the left was
Speaker 1: going for with that, right, I got it. He had
Speaker 1: that whole you know him, um, you know he sometimes
Speaker 1: he would talk to sort of professor, but then some
Speaker 1: of those you have the booming voice, you know, you
Speaker 1: do this booming voice thing where he was just you know,
Speaker 1: some people say this and that, and you know, like
Speaker 1: he he sounded, he sounded presidential. To the left, they
Speaker 1: thought he was really charismatic, and he he was able
Speaker 1: to give a good prepared speech off the cuff, really unimpressive,
Speaker 1: but he could give a good a good prepared speech.
Speaker 1: But they've tried this with others now too. You know
Speaker 1: John ass Off, as I mentioned, Wendy Davis. You know,
Speaker 1: they and the whole Kennedy crew. That's all a construct,
Speaker 1: the notion that the Kennedy's are so exceptional, and even
Speaker 1: they tried to mold Bato into a an extension of
Speaker 1: the Kennedy lowers and oh he's kind of like JFK
Speaker 1: because he's young. It's sort of Hanson. The whole notion
Speaker 1: of calling this guy Beeto, by the way, is just
Speaker 1: such it's just such nonsense. Really, you know, you know
Speaker 1: you're not Hispanic, so why you would just have this
Speaker 1: Hispanic nickname? Strikes me as very obvious that people would
Speaker 1: just call you Beto. Really your your father, you know,
Speaker 1: Mr Mr O'Rourke was like, I'm gonna call my son Beto.
Speaker 1: Um strikes man. Maybe maybe it's true. I mean, I'm maybe,
Speaker 1: but it's the all thing strikes me as a bit
Speaker 1: as a bit odd. Now, I'm not going to make
Speaker 1: fun of people's names, but I mean I'm not. I
Speaker 1: didn't call myself, you know, when en gu y e
Speaker 1: n or something, which is a fine name, but it
Speaker 1: tends to be a name associated with Southeast Asia, right,
Speaker 1: I didn't just adopt some name from another culture and
Speaker 1: be like, yeah, I'm basically a part of that culture.
Speaker 1: It might as well be. It's it's cultural appropriation what
Speaker 1: Beto is doing. But reporters and and the left and
Speaker 1: the Democrats there obsessed with this guy. It's weird. It's
Speaker 1: it's really in the realm of creepy. And here is
Speaker 1: for example, here's just one example of this. I mean,
Speaker 1: here's a reporter who's supposed to be interviewing Beto A.
Speaker 1: Rourke and this is what she says to him during
Speaker 1: the interview. Play clip nine obvious strategies that I've seen
Speaker 1: himployed in in a modern campaign. We just literally show
Speaker 1: up everywhere all the time for everyone. You can't go
Speaker 1: ten feet without an interruption from the betto backer, love
Speaker 1: you to thank you all a star. No, No, there's
Speaker 1: just so many great people who are star. Beato, you're
Speaker 1: a rock star. You're amazing, Beto. That's a reporter. He's
Speaker 1: got the mic in hand, the whole thing. You're a
Speaker 1: rock star. Really, that's what you say to the guy
Speaker 1: that is the is your interview subject. Now, look, I
Speaker 1: know people were saying, oh, you're so great, but does
Speaker 1: anyone has any reporter, uh from the big mainstream journalist
Speaker 1: outfits out there? Has anyone on the left or even
Speaker 1: in the main the quote mainstream media's down the middle
Speaker 1: of journalists the big lie, but they still cling to it.
Speaker 1: Have they ever gone out somewhere with Trump and like, wow,
Speaker 1: you're you're a political phenomenon the likes of which this
Speaker 1: country has probably never seen. Um, does anyone ever say that,
Speaker 1: they say he's a rock star? I mean Trump's If
Speaker 1: Beto is a rock star, Trump is a is some
Speaker 1: kind of superhuman superstar, right. But they would never do that,
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that they should. I just want
Speaker 1: to note the comparison between the two, because when you
Speaker 1: take a look at it, you can find very obviously
Speaker 1: that you know, they they buy into this mythology on
Speaker 1: this guy Beto. But everyone who says, by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, oh, he's so handsome, he's so charismatic, I
Speaker 1: don't see it at all. I don't none of it.
Speaker 1: I'm like the guys hes okay, lookig and you know,
Speaker 1: it sounds okay, And the whole thing thing strikes me
Speaker 1: as kind of phony. But I guess there's a a
Speaker 1: a kind of mixing here in their minds of that
Speaker 1: running a person him a red state as a down
Speaker 1: home Democrat who can speak to the whole country and
Speaker 1: but also has that kind of youth and cool charisma
Speaker 1: thing that Obama had. So it's almost like the best
Speaker 1: of Bill Clinton, the best of Obama politically speaking, pulled together.
Speaker 1: UM and I think that is how they view it.
Speaker 1: I think that's kind of the way that because they're
Speaker 1: obsessed with this guy. And I'll tell you this, and
Speaker 1: I've seen some other saying and I think it's true.
Speaker 1: They know he's gonna lose. He's gonna lose by double digits.
Speaker 1: I've beenelling he's gonna lose by by nine or ten points.
Speaker 1: They think he's gonna run for president, that's what they think.
Speaker 1: They think that he'll have a good enough showing in
Speaker 1: Texas that the case will be he'll win all the
Speaker 1: blue states and be competitive in the red states, and
Speaker 1: he can take on Trump. And I'm here to tell
Speaker 1: you that Trump would crush him so badly he would
Speaker 1: flee the scene. But dude, seriously, yeah, dude, seriously, what
Speaker 1: this not? Not that's cool. I'm a prince, she's a princess.
Speaker 1: We were gonna you know, we messed around at the party,
Speaker 1: so we're just picking up when we left off. But
Speaker 1: did she into it now? She told me earlier she
Speaker 1: wants to d from the P from the P. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's me, the prince, the P. I'm the p here
Speaker 1: the prince. What is she gonna made a contract or something? No,
Speaker 1: but I mean, did you ask her if she wants
Speaker 1: to mm hmm, well, I guess not really. Okay, In
Speaker 1: case you didn't know, that is a kind of public
Speaker 1: service announcement from Amnesty International, which is an organization that
Speaker 1: apparently has a lot of time on its hands. An
Speaker 1: Amnesty International thinks that people need to be told via
Speaker 1: fairy tale that there's to be no uh no kissing
Speaker 1: women who are asleep. This guy also this this it's
Speaker 1: a cartoon. We played to the audio from it. He
Speaker 1: kind of like reaches like he's gonna do a little
Speaker 1: grop grop thing while this woman's passed out. And you know,
Speaker 1: this follows last week when you had Christian Bell, who
Speaker 1: is a celebritante. Does not strike me as very bright.
Speaker 1: She's a fine actress, I guess, I don't know. She
Speaker 1: kind of plays in an attractive, youngish blonde female. I've
Speaker 1: never seen a really extend herself. Yeah, but who cares.
Speaker 1: I'm not a thespian critic or a critic of theater.
Speaker 1: But she said that she's worried about what will happen
Speaker 1: to young women that see or people in general, including
Speaker 1: her daughter. I think she said with a fairy tale
Speaker 1: of sleeping beauty who was kissed to wake her up
Speaker 1: from her dream, because that there's a violation of consent
Speaker 1: that goes on there. Now, I put it out to
Speaker 1: you last week that the point is really not that
Speaker 1: there's a consent issue, because we're talking about a witch
Speaker 1: who has magic apples and somebody's in a coma from
Speaker 1: eating the apple, and it is a it is a
Speaker 1: fairy tale, and really, if the only way for her
Speaker 1: to be awoken, which is the storyline, is by a
Speaker 1: prince to kiss her, he saves her life by kissing her.
Speaker 1: So it's really almost like he's performing mouth the mouth resuscitation,
Speaker 1: I would say, and therefore he does have consent if
Speaker 1: we're going to take it to this weird place where
Speaker 1: we're talking about this, because if somebody is choking and
Speaker 1: you give the mouth the mouth resuscitation, you don't have
Speaker 1: to say, hey, can you can you verbalize that you're
Speaker 1: choking and I'm gonna give you or you know, or
Speaker 1: they're they're hardest stop. I know, choking is the heimli
Speaker 1: hardest stop. You get the idea, Uh so, mouth the
Speaker 1: mouth resuscitation, you know, in a fairy tale is really
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here. But they ran with this.
Speaker 1: They didn't stop. They weren't. They weren't. It wasn't enough
Speaker 1: for them to just say I have an actress say this,
Speaker 1: because there was another one. I forget who. Another actress
Speaker 1: came out, Oh, I'm worried about fairy tales and the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: So they're they're destroying centuries old stories that is in
Speaker 1: still very basic one creative sensibility in young people, but
Speaker 1: also have some basic morality and tales of good and
Speaker 1: evil and their fairy tales they're meant for amusement. I
Speaker 1: promise you, I don't know a single guy who in
Speaker 1: college age was like, well, because the handsome prince can
Speaker 1: kiss the girl in the coma, uh, I can kiss
Speaker 1: this girl in real life here, Like, no one would
Speaker 1: ever think that. Nobody, no human being has ever ever
Speaker 1: ever thought that. So this was a problem that did
Speaker 1: not exist. But now they've gone even further with it.
Speaker 1: And you know in that video, I don't want to
Speaker 1: play it again for you because you already heard it,
Speaker 1: but you know there's some very dare First of all,
Speaker 1: there's a curse and there's some they make it very
Speaker 1: clear that there's some kind of crude sexual humor in
Speaker 1: there as well, referring to the initials that he uses
Speaker 1: and everything. And he's clearly supposed to be an entitled
Speaker 1: frat bro the prance. I mean, there's there's all the
Speaker 1: the patriarchy left wing stuff is there. But you know,
Speaker 1: this is what the what the left doesn't yet grasp
Speaker 1: is that they lose on this stuff. They lose on
Speaker 1: these culture issues where they are acting like maniacs um
Speaker 1: and And this brings me to not just this battle
Speaker 1: over fairy tales and consent, but this whole this whole
Speaker 1: story that broke today about how Trump is taking is
Speaker 1: telling the d o J now um that they should
Speaker 1: This is this is the storyline at least that transgender
Speaker 1: could be defined out of existence under a Trump administration. Now,
Speaker 1: that is such a loaded headline. That is such a
Speaker 1: loaded headline in so many ways. One of them is
Speaker 1: that no person can be defined out of existence. A
Speaker 1: person is a person, and all of us have equal
Speaker 1: rights under the law as people. This is a question
Speaker 1: of whether you can create an additional detected class of
Speaker 1: people who have additional rights to everybody else based upon
Speaker 1: this designation of transgender and the left is very upset
Speaker 1: about this because the transgender issue. They say, transgender rights
Speaker 1: are human rights. Very upset. This has led to all
Speaker 1: the bathroom policy fights, and there's this tremendous focus on
Speaker 1: this issue right now because they view this as one
Speaker 1: of the places where Trump is being a you know,
Speaker 1: Trump is being a savage. Trump is being so heartless
Speaker 1: and cruel and all the rest of it. Meanwhile, no
Speaker 1: one can really have an honest conversation on the left
Speaker 1: about what's going on here when they say that he's
Speaker 1: Trump is going to redefine And this is one of
Speaker 1: the very uh skewed ways that we always have to
Speaker 1: have conversation with the left is that if something is
Speaker 1: one way for four thousand years and then the left
Speaker 1: says it's now another way the next day. When we say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, I don't think that's really accurate,
Speaker 1: they say, oh, they they want to change this whole concept.
Speaker 1: They want to change things. I said, well, I thought
Speaker 1: to be a progressive, aren't you always changing things? But
Speaker 1: this is central to how they operate. The changes that
Speaker 1: progressives get in culture, in law, and society must be
Speaker 1: considered permanent. The changes that conservatives get even when it
Speaker 1: is a change back to traditions and back to what
Speaker 1: we all consider normative. That's disruptive and crazy and regressive
Speaker 1: and horrible. So their victories are permanent. Ours are always
Speaker 1: up for further battles and further further debate. Um Transgenderism
Speaker 1: is a very tricky issue for a lot of people
Speaker 1: I know, and I'm very friendly with a number of
Speaker 1: transgender people in my day to day life. And let's
Speaker 1: always remember that you have to be polite and decent
Speaker 1: to everyone you know. There there's no room for being
Speaker 1: nasty to somebody, especially if you take the position that
Speaker 1: I do that as genderism is largely an emotional, uh disorder,
Speaker 1: then you want to be kind to somebody who has
Speaker 1: who's having a struggle. They're having a problem, they're having
Speaker 1: an issue, right the same way that if I met
Speaker 1: somebody who said, you know, I'm I'm really struggling in
Speaker 1: the grips of alcoholism, there's nothing to make a joke
Speaker 1: about or be nasty about. You. You want to as
Speaker 1: a human being, support them, reach out to them, assist
Speaker 1: them in that struggle, because we are all struggling. But
Speaker 1: that's on the human to human level. On the policy level,
Speaker 1: they can't even define what transgender really is. And this
Speaker 1: is where they there's a very you have to watch
Speaker 1: their hands very closely as they play the three card
Speaker 1: Monty here or the Democrat Party. You have to you
Speaker 1: have to pay attention because they will say, well, the
Speaker 1: science is with us, but that's a lie because sex
Speaker 1: is in fact binary male female, and there has never
Speaker 1: been a human being who has two fully functional sets
Speaker 1: of genital genitalia. There is a scientific terminology. I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to be you know, crass or puri into or
Speaker 1: anything like that. Uh, there is something called intersex or
Speaker 1: being a hermaphrodite. Hermaphrodite is a reference back to uh,
Speaker 1: the child of Hermes and Aphrodite that was said to
Speaker 1: be both male and female. That's where the term hermaphrodite
Speaker 1: comes from, right, Hermes and Aphrodite, hermaphrodit, hermaphrodite um. But
Speaker 1: that intersex, which is the more commonly used term for
Speaker 1: that now, is never fully both you're you actually you know,
Speaker 1: and there can be some genetic there can be some
Speaker 1: genetic abnor analies in this. And again I'm not a scientist,
Speaker 1: but I do read a lot about this, and I'm
Speaker 1: trying to share that information with you and good faith
Speaker 1: and honesty. But here's the bigger problem that they have.
Speaker 1: The people that are claiming to be transgender are not,
Speaker 1: by a lot or overwhelmingly, i should say, not, biologically intersex.
Speaker 1: And if being intersex, which is a physical characteristic, is
Speaker 1: the basis for transgenderism, then it doesn't. Then it does
Speaker 1: not extend to all the people that just say I
Speaker 1: feel differently, I have a psychologically based transgenderism. So this
Speaker 1: is why on the science they can't win this argument.
Speaker 1: They have to make this an emotional argument. They have
Speaker 1: to make an emotional argument because what they're really calling
Speaker 1: for is the government's recognition and special protection of a
Speaker 1: psychological condition also known as gender dysphoria. And the viciousness
Speaker 1: with which the left will attack anyone who tries to
Speaker 1: have a good faith discussion about this tells you all
Speaker 1: you really need to know. You know, when you see
Speaker 1: academics from respected publications right about rapid onset gender dysphoria,
Speaker 1: which just means people hear about other people who are transgender,
Speaker 1: young people in particular teenagers, and they say, you know,
Speaker 1: they're feel strange about their sexuality. Man, being a teenager's hard.
Speaker 1: I remember, it was not an easy time. And then
Speaker 1: they think, well, I must be transgender too. Well, when
Speaker 1: you see that clustering and clustering that happening, you know
Speaker 1: that it is not a not an immutable biological characteristic.
Speaker 1: It's environmental and psychological. So now we're going to create
Speaker 1: a separate class. Legally, speaking of separate class, people can
Speaker 1: think of themselves wherever they want, right, you know, and
Speaker 1: you can change your name. You can tell me to
Speaker 1: change your name, you know. But sex is a definable thing,
Speaker 1: and we are not changing the definition. We are just
Speaker 1: saying that it is definable male and female, and it
Speaker 1: is binary. There are not thirty seven genders, there are two.
Speaker 1: There are not ten genders. There are two. When you
Speaker 1: be very clear about this, and if they're going to
Speaker 1: be distinctions in the law four people who are transgender,
Speaker 1: then it needs to be very clear what qualifies one
Speaker 1: as transgender and what we really mean when we say that,
Speaker 1: because what we're not going to do, and this is
Speaker 1: what the left wants to do, is pretend and force
Speaker 1: us all legally to pretend that there are not, in fact,
Speaker 1: just two genders that male and female are not verifiable, quantifiable,
Speaker 1: real things anymore. I am fine with being understanding and
Speaker 1: decent and respectful. In fact, I think that it's a
Speaker 1: calling for all of us to approach our daily lives
Speaker 1: in that way. I am not fine with being legally
Speaker 1: forced into either accepting so vague a description and definition
Speaker 1: has to be meaningless, or to be forced into supporting
Speaker 1: a falsehood, a delusion. You know, if somebody who is
Speaker 1: male wants me to call that person, you know, Denise,
Speaker 1: I will do that. You can choose your name, and
Speaker 1: I'm respectful of that. But if someone wants their driver's
Speaker 1: license to say sex unknown, I'm sorry, No, that's a problem.
Speaker 1: That's a delusion, that's not living in reality. Science doesn't
Speaker 1: support it, and it's an unreasonable position to take, and
Speaker 1: it's not one that falls under the oh, let's all
Speaker 1: just be polite to each other. Exception. Other than years
Speaker 1: ago the presidential race, I have never seen spirit like
Speaker 1: I see right now. I think the Republicans are gonna
Speaker 1: do very well. People are tired of high taxes. We
Speaker 1: get we gave the tax cuts, We've done so much,
Speaker 1: and they want a strong military, they want protection they
Speaker 1: want safety, they want security. We give that. The Democrats
Speaker 1: do not give that. The Democrats don't know what they're doing.
Speaker 1: They don't know what they're giving. I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: do very very well in the race. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: Trump's right. I think that we're gonna pick up Senate seats.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna be fifty five have you heard
Speaker 1: it here? First? Fifty five Republican Senate seats by by
Speaker 1: the end of this thing, not quite at the super
Speaker 1: majority of sixty, although wouldn't that be sweet. Mid term
Speaker 1: is gonna be tight, I mean House, rather, in the
Speaker 1: mid term's gonna be tight, very very tight. I I
Speaker 1: think it could go either way right now, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna be just a few seats that separates the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the Republicans at the end of the day. But
Speaker 1: Trump is an incredibly powerful voice in this whole debate
Speaker 1: and discussion. I think that he's really making a very
Speaker 1: He's making the case very well. Which are the Democrats
Speaker 1: don't actually have an agenda or platform other than trying
Speaker 1: to restore the legal and cultural edifice of obama Ism
Speaker 1: while Trump is president, and they won't be able to
Speaker 1: do that, so this is really just going to be
Speaker 1: much more rhetorical battling, much more fighting it out in
Speaker 1: the media and nastiness, and it really is. It is
Speaker 1: mobs or jobs, and the Republicans need to hammer that
Speaker 1: home the place that I think they're on that and
Speaker 1: they're doing They're okay, and they could be stronger on this.
Speaker 1: But on healthcare, I'm furious with the Republicans because they
Speaker 1: don't have a unified message and because of a couple
Speaker 1: of very unreliable GOP senators, we don't actually have a
Speaker 1: real achievement you speak of in in the healthcare realm,
Speaker 1: and Obamacare is garbage and Trump is allowing people to
Speaker 1: get out of the individual mandate, but that and also
Speaker 1: giving states more flexibility in this, but they need to
Speaker 1: be telling people what that means and what it does
Speaker 1: for them. You know, they are not effective messengers on healthcare,
Speaker 1: and that could be I really do think if if
Speaker 1: the Democrats when the when the House, it's going to
Speaker 1: be because of that issue. On the Senate side, however,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz versus a Beto O'Rourke, no surprise here, Trump
Speaker 1: is going out there to Stanford. Stanford, Ted, and I
Speaker 1: just thought I thought this was a nice moment to play.
Speaker 1: Play clip twenty is Trump's on his way to Texas.
Speaker 1: He's not lying Ted anymore. He's beautiful, Ted, beautiful, He's Texas.
Speaker 1: I call up Texas, Ted, Ted, Ted, Cruise and I
Speaker 1: had a very very nasty and tough camp. It was
Speaker 1: a competitive was a very tough campaign. Once today did
Speaker 1: and we got together and by the way, very late
Speaker 1: into the campaign, we last people were shocked. I said,
Speaker 1: don't worry, it's only equation of time. And then ultimately
Speaker 1: what happened. We fought it out. The outcome was obvious,
Speaker 1: and we have worked together very closely. I like him
Speaker 1: a lot. I actually like him a lot, and he's
Speaker 1: a very smart guy. He loves the people of Texas,
Speaker 1: which I do. And in fact, right now, I guess
Speaker 1: they said they've never seen. It's like a big tailgate.
Speaker 1: It goes on for miles. It's over a hundred thousand vigour.
Speaker 1: It's incredible, the crowd all that's gonna be greeting Trump
Speaker 1: in Texas saying over a hundred thousand people have registered
Speaker 1: for this thing. Uh, We've had some fun with the
Speaker 1: whole Beto nests on this show tonight. But keep in
Speaker 1: mind it's just yet another case study in the medium
Speaker 1: malpractice and in the bias that's pushing so much of
Speaker 1: what they do every day. I mean, this guy Beato,
Speaker 1: never had a prayer, never had a chance, but the
Speaker 1: media just tried so a thirty eight million dollars. Oh,
Speaker 1: they're going all in on this guy, all in on him,
Speaker 1: and I just feel like, you know, it couldn't be
Speaker 1: any more obvious. They have very little interest in the
Speaker 1: fact that there's a much closer than anticipated Senate race
Speaker 1: for the seat, the Franken seat up in Minnesota. You know,
Speaker 1: you'll notice that not a lot of people, not a
Speaker 1: lot of people in the media are are paying attention
Speaker 1: to the fact there's a single digit lead right now
Speaker 1: for the Democrat in that in that Senate race who's
Speaker 1: trying to replace the Franken seat. So, you know, the
Speaker 1: race where they think maybe they can get some big
Speaker 1: upset against Ted Cruz that gets all kinds of coverage
Speaker 1: by like Senator Tina Smith is the one I'm I'm
Speaker 1: talking about here. So she's just barely hanging on up there,
Speaker 1: and uh, we'll see um single digit lead in her
Speaker 1: battle will stay in the seat that she was appointed
Speaker 1: to following Franken's resignation. Our three coming up gonna be huge. Look,
Speaker 1: our president has normalized this kind of behavior, and as
Speaker 1: long as he's in office, it's going to be the norm. Unfortunately, Oh,
Speaker 1: I think he's sitting there and he's sneaking a couple
Speaker 1: of things. First of all, I have Capital Police that
Speaker 1: are ten feet away too. He's thinking, I got my
Speaker 1: wife Lane, who is better than the Capitol Police. Three,
Speaker 1: he's thinking Merrick Garland, you know, verse my leftovers. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's getting away with murder and net net. I think
Speaker 1: he thinks this is this is the worst he gets.
Speaker 1: It's fine, but this is such a made up problem.
Speaker 1: People are doing this because there is no other opportunity
Speaker 1: or no other opposite oversight. The Republican Congress has basically
Speaker 1: pledged fealty to Donald Trump. You have a Republican party
Speaker 1: who was giving aid and comfort to the Proud Boys
Speaker 1: and to white nationalists, and they become the party of
Speaker 1: white nationalists and all of their hatred. That's a bigger
Speaker 1: deal to me than someone not getting their supper. Everything
Speaker 1: that God just said is either a lie, obtuse, or
Speaker 1: just bizarre, mostly lies, lots of obtuse and some bizarre too.
Speaker 1: That's Philip Raines, who is Obama's former Deputy Secretary of
Speaker 1: State and a close I don't know if he still
Speaker 1: is because people eventually always fall out with the Clintons,
Speaker 1: a close associate of the Clintons, and there he was
Speaker 1: excusing what happened over the weekend, which was a confrontation
Speaker 1: between Mitch McConnell and some restaurant protester types where Mimch
Speaker 1: McConnell was just trying to have dinner. He's there with
Speaker 1: the Lynch how his wife, and they're just trying to
Speaker 1: sit and I think they're like a Golden Corral or something,
Speaker 1: a very you know, normal everyday restaurant, and you've got
Speaker 1: people that are up in his face yelling at him,
Speaker 1: and we have the audio. The audio of it is
Speaker 1: not great. But here's here's what happened at this restaurant
Speaker 1: of the weekend, where once again civility out there, mob behavior, folks, jobs,
Speaker 1: not mobs. That is the Republican model right now, because
Speaker 1: the mobs are everywhere with the left. The mobs are
Speaker 1: always tracking our people down to harass them. Play clip
Speaker 1: one get out, so you get the idea. It was
Speaker 1: another you know, well, you live our country, as some
Speaker 1: guy yelling at Mitch McConnell lives are crazy. I mean,
Speaker 1: it really is a delusion. It really is a mental
Speaker 1: impairment at this point to be a far left progressive
Speaker 1: you cannot handle normal reality. And I think that you
Speaker 1: keep seeing this happening, and I honestly just get so
Speaker 1: tired of hearing from people that one it's not a problem.
Speaker 1: I mean that guy Philippe rains, we just came in
Speaker 1: with that clip. He says, you know this, this isn't
Speaker 1: a thing. No, it is a thing. He's talking about
Speaker 1: an incident of it. And there have been many incidents
Speaker 1: of this mob behavior from the left, mob behavior from
Speaker 1: Democrats who are throwing tantrums. That's all. This is a
Speaker 1: public tantrum. And this notion that people have no other
Speaker 1: way of what do they think this achieves? Just does
Speaker 1: someone really think that by acting like a moron, Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell's gonna say, oh, yeah, I hadn't thought of it
Speaker 1: that way. You're right, I am a Nazi. Maybe I
Speaker 1: should just stop being a senator. I mean, is that
Speaker 1: is that in any way realistic. Now. I also saw
Speaker 1: over the weekend. I'm always amazed at how many people
Speaker 1: that are supposed to have intelligent opinions are are actually morons.
Speaker 1: Um And I know that this is a thing that happens.
Speaker 1: But you know, here's some guy named Wesley Lowry at
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. He wrote, he wrote over the weekend,
Speaker 1: after this miss McConnell thing, quote, yelling at elected officials
Speaker 1: in public is protected First Amendment speech, and it's pretty
Speaker 1: disgusting to see journalists lecturing our fellow citizens for directly
Speaker 1: petitioning government officials like the Philipe Brain's clip. Everything he
Speaker 1: said here is is wrong in in essence. Now, I know, people,
Speaker 1: yes it is. It is protected speech, but that's irrelevant
Speaker 1: because the protected speech we're talking about here in a restaurant.
Speaker 1: No one's saying the government has a right to come
Speaker 1: in and arrest these people. But the establishment can say
Speaker 1: get out, you're trespassing. This is private property. They have
Speaker 1: that right too. You know. The the left thinks that
Speaker 1: the First Amendment means they get to say whatever they
Speaker 1: want and act however they want, and nobody else gets
Speaker 1: to say anything about it because we're infringing on their
Speaker 1: right by exercising our right. They don't understand this. They
Speaker 1: have no concept of of rights existing in parallel to
Speaker 1: each other. You know, somebody can say something really stupid
Speaker 1: about Trump, and I can say that was really stupid.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that I'm negating their First Amendment right.
Speaker 1: If I, you know, put tape over their mouth and
Speaker 1: lock them in a closet, that's probably kidnapping. But also
Speaker 1: it's that's negating their first Amendment right if I refuse
Speaker 1: to give them a permit to speak in a public park.
Speaker 1: When I give that permit to other people to speak
Speaker 1: in a public park because a viewpoint discrimination, that's not
Speaker 1: respecting their first a momoment right. But in a restaurant, now,
Speaker 1: you don't have the right to go in to a
Speaker 1: restaurant and act like a moron anymore than you're the
Speaker 1: right you go in to a restaurant and play your
Speaker 1: you know, boom box, which we used to have some of.
Speaker 1: You remember we used to have those in the eighties
Speaker 1: and the nineties. The boom box. You remember, he is
Speaker 1: carried around with you. I remember how cool you were
Speaker 1: in high school was almost directly correlated with how big
Speaker 1: your speakers were you know, you want a big speakers,
Speaker 1: then you were really cool. I always thought little speakers
Speaker 1: were much more esthetically pleasing. And people are like, why
Speaker 1: do you like the little speakers? Buck? And and one
Speaker 1: of the known speakers there there was a guy. There
Speaker 1: was a public pool that I would go to um
Speaker 1: over the weeks. Well it's not really public, but a
Speaker 1: community pool whatever that I used to go to over
Speaker 1: the summer, and there's a guy used to show up
Speaker 1: there with and he would bring every time he was there,
Speaker 1: he would bring a little outdoor speaker with him and
Speaker 1: play his weird Buddha bar lounge music. And and I
Speaker 1: just think that that's such an toos weird thing to do.
Speaker 1: Like everybody else the pool wants to hear your music.
Speaker 1: You know that that's a bold thing to do to
Speaker 1: inflict it on every Bring a Bluetooth speaker with you
Speaker 1: so you can blast your music at a pool with
Speaker 1: a hundred people. I think that's very very strange UM.
Speaker 1: And I think that, you know, it's it's something that
Speaker 1: people should not do. Anyway, back to Mitch McConnell, what's
Speaker 1: going on here? And this guy Wesley at the Washington
Speaker 1: Post is essentially doesn't understand where the First Amendment stops
Speaker 1: and starts. And you see this from a lot of journalists,
Speaker 1: which you think that people who make a living from
Speaker 1: the First Amendment would have a better understanding of it.
Speaker 1: But their understanding the First Amendment is they have special
Speaker 1: rights and privileges and everybody else needs to just deal
Speaker 1: with it. Um. But that's not the way. That's not
Speaker 1: the way this is supposed to function. That's not how
Speaker 1: this is supposed to go. And for the Philly Brains thing,
Speaker 1: I need to say that we're giving comfort to white
Speaker 1: nationalists and we're I hate this talking point. It's so vile,
Speaker 1: it's so despicable and unfair, and they keep saying and
Speaker 1: all the time, and it's just a way of shutting
Speaker 1: down any honest political dialogue, which is why people like
Speaker 1: me have increasingly said over the last six months, you
Speaker 1: know what, the Russia collusion thing. Now they know they
Speaker 1: can't win that you're just you're just gonna see that
Speaker 1: same that same mentality, that same insane tenacity around an
Speaker 1: issue where they think they can destroy the president. That's
Speaker 1: going to be uh expanded to cover any number of
Speaker 1: things so that the craziness that led them to believe
Speaker 1: that Russia collusion was going to bring down the president.
Speaker 1: That same level of just bizarre, uh, will now be
Speaker 1: on everything, the twenty Amendment stuff, the confronting people in restaurants,
Speaker 1: because that was just the that was the the place
Speaker 1: where you had the first real symptoms of Trump arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: The first major symptom was Russia is going to bring
Speaker 1: down the presidency. It's really gonna happen. Trump is a
Speaker 1: Russian stooge and a Russian pawn, where it's just a
Speaker 1: matter of time before we prove it. And now you
Speaker 1: see that because that's just not gonna work, they're now
Speaker 1: pushing out into everything else and you're seeing the same
Speaker 1: insanity and Philippe rains. They're saying that, you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's not a big deal that people were yelling at
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell. And remember, no one's saying these people should
Speaker 1: be arrested. We're just saying they're idiots and people shouldn't
Speaker 1: do this, and we should be able to share that
Speaker 1: opinion without people say you can't share your opinion. That's
Speaker 1: destroying the First Amendment. No, it is not. It is not,
Speaker 1: And I just think that this is one of these
Speaker 1: places where you know, you either have principles you don't.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm not skipping over, we just don't
Speaker 1: have in a list here. There were there were a
Speaker 1: bunch of people that were harassing nan See Pelosi over
Speaker 1: the weekend too, and they are total morons. Okay, they
Speaker 1: absolutely should not should not be given any respect or
Speaker 1: any you know, approval from anyone. I heard somebody say
Speaker 1: they were the Proud Boys. I don't know. I just
Speaker 1: know that there was a video of people, sorry, I'm
Speaker 1: getting over a cold, so my voice has been really
Speaker 1: shaky last week, video of people who probably yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: I had a called. I did the show every day.
Speaker 1: I don't miss the show when I'm sick because I
Speaker 1: love all of you so much and I can't. I
Speaker 1: can't skip a day in the Freedom HUD unless I
Speaker 1: have a work thing I have to do. But that's rare.
Speaker 1: But the people yelling at Pelosi, they've done nothing to
Speaker 1: help their cause and a lot to harm it. If
Speaker 1: their cause is, and I don't know what they're cause is,
Speaker 1: I'm assuming it's just anti left wing something. But the
Speaker 1: left you're doing there a huge favor. No matter who
Speaker 1: you are. If you say you're on the right, and
Speaker 1: I know some people are talking false flag, I haven't
Speaker 1: seen any evidence of that. If you say you're on
Speaker 1: the right and you are screaming and yelling at people
Speaker 1: on the left, now you give them the ability to say, oh,
Speaker 1: see both sides are doing it, when both sides aren't
Speaker 1: doing it, but that one case will be magnified. So
Speaker 1: those imbeciles who are banging on doors and yelling at
Speaker 1: Pelosi have done the far left a huge favor. I
Speaker 1: just saw the CEO of Global Verification Network last week
Speaker 1: here in d C. We caught up for a while
Speaker 1: and I said, Hey, Mark, how's business. He said, business
Speaker 1: is great. We've got companies large and small coming to
Speaker 1: us for their background investigations and vetting. And I know
Speaker 1: why that is, folks, because Global Verification is a US based,
Speaker 1: veteran owned and operated background investigation company. Whatever your needs
Speaker 1: are for your HR department, or if you're going to
Speaker 1: be leasing out a property to somebody, if you need
Speaker 1: to make sure the person you are transacting business with
Speaker 1: is who they say they are, you want a US
Speaker 1: based company, a veteran owned and operated company, one that
Speaker 1: doesn't offshore data, doesn't send your stuff overseas and really
Speaker 1: just act as a middleman taking a cut. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network does it all here. It's headquartered in Chicago. This
Speaker 1: is an all American company. Folks call them eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five nine. That's eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five s nine. Tell them Buck Sexton sent you.
Speaker 1: Or go to my GVN dot com. That's my GVN
Speaker 1: dot com. Specifically, one of the biggest challenges you have.
Speaker 1: You were screamed at for four hours this week at
Speaker 1: a town hall on homelessness. Homelessness is nearly up fifty
Speaker 1: in your city since you became mayor, according to the
Speaker 1: l A Times. Now there's a typhus outbreak, likely due
Speaker 1: to the booming number of rats attracted by all the
Speaker 1: few food and human waste. It's in skid row and
Speaker 1: other places. Um. Some critics might say, Hey, Mari GARCETI,
Speaker 1: why are you traveling the country campaigning for Democrats in
Speaker 1: the midterms when you have this huge crisis in your
Speaker 1: own backyard. Well, I think they're linked together, and I
Speaker 1: welcome a national conversation Washington, d C. Where they're more
Speaker 1: homeless per capita. Where you see in Seattle and San Francisco,
Speaker 1: and you see in red and blue cities a mental
Speaker 1: health crisis. And you know, mayors, as I said, can't
Speaker 1: avoid that. A lot of people told me never touch
Speaker 1: the issue of homelessness, but I am so passionate about it.
Speaker 1: We have people who are dying on our streets from
Speaker 1: opioid addiction. UM. I'm so proud of voters in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles who passed the two largest measures in the local
Speaker 1: level in US history to combat homelessness. This is what
Speaker 1: people say is an unsolvable problem, and I'm committed to
Speaker 1: solving it. Somebody put Mayor Garcetti of l A's answer
Speaker 1: there on the poop patrol because that's what it deserves.
Speaker 1: That was incredible. So there you had lib lib Tapper
Speaker 1: over at CNN liberal Jake Tapper um also known as
Speaker 1: fake Tapper, and and he is he's asking Garcetti about
Speaker 1: the uh, the whole situation of homelessness in l A,
Speaker 1: which I've seen with my own eyes and I'm sure
Speaker 1: many of you have two, is appalling. There are ten
Speaker 1: cities in parts of l A. And it's gotten so
Speaker 1: bad now that there has been a typhus outbreak. Now,
Speaker 1: for those of you who are wondering, why would why
Speaker 1: would there be a typhus outbreak because of the homelessness problem,
Speaker 1: It's because human feces attracts rats, and the rats attracted
Speaker 1: to the human feces carry fleas, and the fleas carry
Speaker 1: the typhus plague or not really technically plague, but typhus disease.
Speaker 1: Although the plague bubonic plague was carried by the fleas
Speaker 1: on rats that came from the East into the Mediterranean,
Speaker 1: as you all know, and lad you about a third
Speaker 1: of Europe being wiped out back in the day, the
Speaker 1: Black Death, bubonic plague, all the different names for the
Speaker 1: same thing. So there is an outbreak of typhus in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, which is a pretty scary public health issue.
Speaker 1: And here you have the mayor of Los Angeles, who's
Speaker 1: a mayor. Okay, he's not a senator, he's not a
Speaker 1: state or national level politician. He's the mayor. And he's
Speaker 1: going around doing his whole hey, I want to be
Speaker 1: famous and campaign for Democrats thing. He's asked about the
Speaker 1: homelessness problem. You know, there's really a map. I've seen it.
Speaker 1: There's a map in San Francisco to show you where
Speaker 1: people are noting that there is feces on the street.
Speaker 1: And in that map you can see that there's a
Speaker 1: tremendous concentration and something. I know, I know, we're talking
Speaker 1: about poop. I'm sorry, guys, it's gross. I hope you're
Speaker 1: not eating. This is a real public health problem, all right.
Speaker 1: I will not avoid the poop just because it's smelly
Speaker 1: or something like that. Uh So, I guess I will.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean, you know what, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. But Garcetti's answer is so classic slimy politician.
Speaker 1: He's asked about the homelessess problem and he immediately says, well,
Speaker 1: everybody's basically got a homelessess problem now, and that's not
Speaker 1: the point, and that's not even entirely true. L A
Speaker 1: is among the worst in the entire country, probably second
Speaker 1: only to San Francisco right now. And it's a relatively
Speaker 1: new problems up since Garcetti became the mayor of Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: But notice how he goes in this hole. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a mental health crisis, and I'm committed
Speaker 1: to solving it. And he gives this answer that if
Speaker 1: you weren't paying attention. You can come away from and think, Wow,
Speaker 1: this guy is really on the ball, and then you
Speaker 1: realize he hasn't said anything. He's essentially done the usual
Speaker 1: lib trick of all I've got and I've got some
Speaker 1: things that we got to talk about. We really care,
Speaker 1: we're emotionally connected, and solutions and think outside the box.
Speaker 1: All this gobbledeegok, I mean, all of this clap trap.
Speaker 1: But he doesn't give you a solution. He doesn't give
Speaker 1: you an answer or a way of dealing with the problem.
Speaker 1: He just says, yeah, you know, I really care and
Speaker 1: I'm on it and we're going to fix this. And
Speaker 1: you see this so much with the Democrats. It's really
Speaker 1: a reminder of how the Democrats are operating in general
Speaker 1: right now. And what they're doing is effectively to connect,
Speaker 1: trying to connect emotionally with people without having to put
Speaker 1: forward any of their policies to try and make it
Speaker 1: seem like they care all feel off, feel your pay
Speaker 1: That's what they're you know, and that wasn't the only
Speaker 1: thing that Bill Clinton was feeling back in the day.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, I'm just saying, ah, I'll lock you know,
Speaker 1: also grapefruits in the grocery store and all kinds of
Speaker 1: you know, orbital things, orbital objects. But you know, Clinton
Speaker 1: aside for a moment here. The problem that Democrats have
Speaker 1: is the more people understand about what Democrats want to
Speaker 1: do when it comes to governance, the less they trust
Speaker 1: govern The less they trust Democrats with governance. Okay, so
Speaker 1: you have to keep that in mind. And the more
Speaker 1: that we find out that the Democrats don't have any solutions,
Speaker 1: the less will listen to their Oh, I've got solutions,
Speaker 1: talk solutions, Like what, how do they want to deal
Speaker 1: with homelessness? The answer is they don't want to clear
Speaker 1: the homeless off the street and tell them that, you know,
Speaker 1: and essentially enforced vagrancy laws because that seems mean, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. Well, if we're going to create
Speaker 1: a system for keeping people off the street, and we
Speaker 1: have places for them to go that are meant to
Speaker 1: give them a safe place to sleep, food to eat,
Speaker 1: and help to get back up on their feet, which
Speaker 1: we do as a country. We do it better in
Speaker 1: some places than others, but there are programs that exist
Speaker 1: for that purpose. If we have those programs, we should
Speaker 1: also be able to say hey, you can't sleep and
Speaker 1: live and poop in the street, because that's what they're doing.
Speaker 1: And it's not good for the people that are living
Speaker 1: on the street. It's not safe, it's not sanitary. But
Speaker 1: the liberal mentality is that they don't want to enforce
Speaker 1: the laws against the less fortunate because they want to
Speaker 1: use the less fortunate as a political paut right. They
Speaker 1: want to use the plight of people who live on
Speaker 1: the street to say, oh, you know, we need we
Speaker 1: need more funding, we need more funding. You know, look
Speaker 1: at the big mean Republicans with their tax breaks. Nobody
Speaker 1: is homeless because of a Republican tax break. Nobody is
Speaker 1: homeless because of Republican fat cats doing you know, private
Speaker 1: equity restructuring or something. People lose their jobs. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's all fine, but you know, they
Speaker 1: take it to this point. And and the other issue
Speaker 1: is you look at mental health as a factor in homelessness. Um, yes,
Speaker 1: that's true, but really what he means by mental health
Speaker 1: is is generally, uh addiction, That's the primary, the primary
Speaker 1: factor that you find with homeless populations all across the country.
Speaker 1: Putting aside this whole homeless by choice movement, which is
Speaker 1: a new thing which is happening in this country as well.
Speaker 1: People say, oh, housing is too expensive, I'm just going
Speaker 1: to choose to be homeless. But you know, I would
Speaker 1: I would tell you that it's roughly seventy of the
Speaker 1: homeless population is the number that I believe I've seen,
Speaker 1: but don't quote me on it um, but it's a
Speaker 1: huge majority for sure. Of a homeless population has either
Speaker 1: a drug problem, a drinking problem, or a serious mental
Speaker 1: health issue, very severe schizophrenia, or any number of different diagnoses.
Speaker 1: And that means these are people who need help, and
Speaker 1: it is not helping them to leave them in the
Speaker 1: public square, literally in the public square, to engage in
Speaker 1: all kinds of you know, human activity and bodily function
Speaker 1: at things that are unsafe and you know, not the
Speaker 1: way that people should be living. But that means you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to have police and social workers and others
Speaker 1: come along and say, all right, you gotta come with me.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get you off the street. We're gonna help you.
Speaker 1: You don't just leave them there to wallow in their filth,
Speaker 1: because that's what the a c LU says. Freedom is
Speaker 1: what is the gravest threat facing this country right now.
Speaker 1: You might think Fiat currency and an unsustainable deadload. You
Speaker 1: might think radical Islam, or Chinese aggression, Russian nuclear fallout.
Speaker 1: I don't know any number of different things that could
Speaker 1: come to mind. But Occasio Cortez, who is soon to
Speaker 1: be a sitting US senator and darling of the left,
Speaker 1: has a very different idea about the single biggest, most
Speaker 1: existential threat to the United States. Here she is, in
Speaker 1: her own words, Cecil Grandis country was too so we
Speaker 1: made years before. We have a prance. I'm doing this before.
Speaker 1: None of these things aren't the ideas, but we have
Speaker 1: such a context. We had a tree with a nomination
Speaker 1: at this time it's Nazi journey. And as that's right,
Speaker 1: we're talking about Nazi Germany. Now it's better be very serious.
Speaker 1: I assume she must be talking about what happens when
Speaker 1: China's economy surpasses our own and we have a country
Speaker 1: with a billion people that wants to be the pre
Speaker 1: eminent global superpower, or at least something incredibly serious that's
Speaker 1: really going to happen and be a real concern for US.
Speaker 1: Right who supposed to be the United States and what
Speaker 1: we did. Was that the show's whole last, entire economy
Speaker 1: and industrialist and some people who work partial in this
Speaker 1: country we have to that's just true. It may see
Speaker 1: the fact of the matter, as we're dealing with that
Speaker 1: radical truth. No we are not. Oh my gosh, climate change, folks,
Speaker 1: climate change and renewable energy. I mean, but let's understand this.
Speaker 1: The push for renewable energy is not about economics. It's
Speaker 1: not about making a more efficient energy source for businesses.
Speaker 1: Renewable energy is nowhere near as efficient as carbon based
Speaker 1: fossil fuels, right, There's just there's no comparison even still
Speaker 1: with some of the technological advances. But renewable energy is
Speaker 1: what we have to devote ourselves to as though it
Speaker 1: were an existential crisis similar to what we faced in
Speaker 1: the Second World War. I don't know how liberals go
Speaker 1: through the day being quite so crazy and quite so bizarre,
Speaker 1: but but they obviously do. And there is very clearly
Speaker 1: a strain of contemporary liberalism that wants to believe in
Speaker 1: the extreme catastrophe scenario of global warming slash climate change.
Speaker 1: Last and I'm really starting to recognize this as a
Speaker 1: disease of the Western mind in the industrialized world of
Speaker 1: the twentie and twenty one century. That because there has
Speaker 1: been an existential crisis for the individual as the individual
Speaker 1: has moved away from God and a sense of a
Speaker 1: divine purpose for being on this earth. The existential purpose
Speaker 1: that exists for these people is in fact existential crisis
Speaker 1: they've created in their mind via climate change. They need purpose. People,
Speaker 1: you go through you know Maslov's Maslow's hierarchy Maslov, that's
Speaker 1: right here on the Bucks Accent show. We combine Pavlov
Speaker 1: with Maslow for Maslov, but Maslow's hierarchy of needs. A
Speaker 1: few were to take a quick look at it, there are, yes,
Speaker 1: of course, at the very top of it, you have
Speaker 1: the need, or should say the very bottom of it,
Speaker 1: where your baseline level of of what is most important
Speaker 1: to you. You know, you have the physical, and then
Speaker 1: you have security, and then you have social and then
Speaker 1: you have ego and then self actualization. At the very
Speaker 1: top of that pyramid, self actualization what comes after you
Speaker 1: have the other things self actualization and ego. For the
Speaker 1: climate change loons are very much tied into each other.
Speaker 1: They exist to save the planet, and the saving and
Speaker 1: saving the planet is why they exist. Right, It's a
Speaker 1: self enforcing psychological loop that people that believe in this have.
Speaker 1: It's a belief. This is not scientific. It is a
Speaker 1: belief and the fact that they have been wrong so
Speaker 1: many times and are wrong not just based on the predictions,
Speaker 1: but wrong on their own day to day interpretation of
Speaker 1: the facts. Right, they'll say, oh, all the scientists agree,
Speaker 1: but that they can't even put this in terms that
Speaker 1: any serious person could could discuss with them. I mean
Speaker 1: to say that we should mobilize millions of people in
Speaker 1: the in the entire economy towards renewable energy. And we
Speaker 1: did that with Nazi Germany and Japan because we didn't
Speaker 1: want our culture and perhaps even our people to be exterminated.
Speaker 1: There's really no serious threat that we're going to be
Speaker 1: exterminated because of climate change. This is this is lunacy.
Speaker 1: This is laughable. And the people that think that I
Speaker 1: don't understand and you don't understand what's really going on
Speaker 1: going on have to take an even bigger leap that
Speaker 1: we don't care that will be extinct or that our
Speaker 1: children will be extinct because we've been bought off by
Speaker 1: oil companies. This, this is crazy. This is once again,
Speaker 1: a mass delusion that has found a tremendous resonance with
Speaker 1: the left, and Ocasio Quartez just parrots it because she
Speaker 1: knows that two people on the political left, this is
Speaker 1: what they want to hear, even though it's crazy. That's right.
Speaker 1: Fight climate change like you fight Nazis, liberty, truth and
Speaker 1: great hair. Feel those funky beats. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: The best way to kick off a Monday is with
Speaker 1: some awesome roll call action. Facebook dot Com, slash buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: and coming soon snippy dot com as part of roll call,
Speaker 1: So start signing up for snippy dot com and sending
Speaker 1: posts and questions and fun things there as well. We're
Speaker 1: gonna get away from the domination of Facebook as quickly
Speaker 1: as we can. Hopefully that's the plan. All right, we
Speaker 1: have Chris writing Charles Martel died on this day. Thanks
Speaker 1: for that excellent podcast. Any chance more Shields High podcasts
Speaker 1: are forthcoming from Chris in Mississippi. Chris, The answer is,
Speaker 1: I hope so, but right now things are a little
Speaker 1: rough on the time front. And the truth is, as
Speaker 1: a business, the podcast world is very difficult to crack
Speaker 1: into unless you have volume, So you need a lot
Speaker 1: of episodes and a lot of listenership, and so to
Speaker 1: devote time to what is a labor of love that
Speaker 1: has no commercial enterprise value to it, which is what
Speaker 1: Shields High was. That is something that is gonna have
Speaker 1: to wait a little bit. We're gonna have to wait
Speaker 1: to we get this podcast to let's say about half
Speaker 1: a million downloads a day, and then I'll do all
Speaker 1: the Shields High downloads you want. Eric writes, By the way,
Speaker 1: we're on the way. We're on the way to that
Speaker 1: half a million a day. We just need some of
Speaker 1: you to tell some friends about the show. You spread
Speaker 1: the word. You guys are my eyes and ears out
Speaker 1: there in the world. Eric writes, additional data points for
Speaker 1: your audio. Guy, I hear the problem whether on my
Speaker 1: motorola or in my car. Um. Also, there was a
Speaker 1: prerecorded advertisement with your voice and it sounded perfect. Please
Speaker 1: fix the audio. The mic is quiet and tinny now
Speaker 1: mm hmmm um. There for the Friday podcast, the music
Speaker 1: is fine and they're interesting. We we had to do
Speaker 1: a different Freedom Hut remote location last week for a
Speaker 1: couple of days. So if that podcast was bad in
Speaker 1: terms of audio quality, it was just because we were
Speaker 1: at a new location. But I'm back right into the
Speaker 1: center of the swamp here, so it should be all
Speaker 1: right now, Paul right buck. During Friday Show, there was
Speaker 1: a segment featuring a host from the view. You were
Speaker 1: quick to counter her idea that journalists are a protected class.
Speaker 1: Something was overlooked though. About halfway through his damon, she says,
Speaker 1: the tone comes from the top, an accidental statement of truth.
Speaker 1: I'm sure we're given the recent statements by Spartacus and
Speaker 1: the decrease a disgrace. Secretary of State shields high Paul, Well, Paul,
Speaker 1: let me say that, yes, it is true that a
Speaker 1: lot of people in journalism and the media do get
Speaker 1: their marching orders from the very top in a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of different ways. And if you want to have
Speaker 1: a successful and lucrative career, what you generally want to
Speaker 1: do is find a way to part the dominant left
Speaker 1: wing narrative. That's the most successful and lucrative approach. Of course,
Speaker 1: we do not do that here in the Hut, Adam
Speaker 1: writes book on the Saudi Debacle. I'd like to play
Speaker 1: devil's advocate here, h Could it be that the hardliners
Speaker 1: use the reporter's death as a martyr to arrest. The
Speaker 1: westernization of Islam. So far as everyone is canceled deals
Speaker 1: with it, it seems to workshields high. Adam, I don't
Speaker 1: think so, but I do have to admit that nobody
Speaker 1: really knows exactly what has happened just quite yet. So
Speaker 1: let's keep keep our eyes and ears open on this
Speaker 1: one and hope to get more facts, more information, more
Speaker 1: data upon which to base our analyzes soon. Jen right
Speaker 1: the way you hear the news talk about the reporter Kashogi,
Speaker 1: At first, I thought it was one of ours. This
Speaker 1: is not our issue, not our citizen, and not on
Speaker 1: our territory. I feel like this wouldn't have been so
Speaker 1: big an issue of Trump had not just succeeded in
Speaker 1: getting our pastor back. Had not just succeeded in getting
Speaker 1: our pastor back. Why are these people not getting arrested?
Speaker 1: And do you mean the people, the Saudi people that
Speaker 1: because they were arrested or are we talking about the caravan?
Speaker 1: I'm not clear. Write me again and let me know,
Speaker 1: Dale Buck, My wife and I just returned from our
Speaker 1: annual trip to Albuquerque and for the International Balloon Fiesta,
Speaker 1: and we always work in a couple of days in
Speaker 1: El Paso. While out there, I like to watch a
Speaker 1: lot of local news whenever I'm out of town, and
Speaker 1: during the commercial breaks there were obviously tons of political ads,
Speaker 1: several which featured the highly touted betto oh Rourke. This
Speaker 1: was my first experience at length with Senior or Roque,
Speaker 1: Senior or Sennor oh Rourke. Sorry it's tough, Sennor or Rourke.
Speaker 1: It's not easy to say. And I came away thoroughly nonplused.
Speaker 1: He's not all that photogenic. He can speak in complete sentences,
Speaker 1: but the crappy throws out his purely style of her substance.
Speaker 1: He of course accused Republicans of a smear campaign against
Speaker 1: him with his dw I and attempted escape. And when
Speaker 1: he threw out it's not a democratic Republican thing, I
Speaker 1: stopped worrying about him. Obama conserned me in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four. The speech to the d n C o'urora
Speaker 1: concerns me. Zero empty suit, except he seems to issue
Speaker 1: suits whenever possible. Dale Dale, I think that they are
Speaker 1: going to try to make a better way national figure.
Speaker 1: I think that they do believe that even though he
Speaker 1: couldn't win in Texas, they might think of him as
Speaker 1: a presidential contender because that's the only way the Democrats
Speaker 1: really believe that they can win now is to run
Speaker 1: somebody who has a national level profile, even if they
Speaker 1: don't have national level political experience. That's what I think,
Speaker 1: um Chad writes, Buck love your stuff. However, you don't
Speaker 1: have the knowledge or experience to take on the vaccine topic.
Speaker 1: Either learn more about both sides of the issue, or
Speaker 1: just don't talk about it. It's no elitist liberals who
Speaker 1: choose not to vaccinate. Many Conservatives like my wife and I,
Speaker 1: with over forty years in the healthcare field between us,
Speaker 1: don't vaccinate our six kids if you want to understand
Speaker 1: both sides and wanting to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: For many, it's always an acceptable risk until it happens
Speaker 1: to their child. Good parents aren't the ones unwilling to
Speaker 1: look at both sides. Shield side Chad okay, Chad, um.
Speaker 1: I don't pretend to have any knowledge about this other
Speaker 1: than just what I can read and what I can
Speaker 1: learn on my own. I have no professional experience in
Speaker 1: medicine or health at all. I do have access to
Speaker 1: a number of people in my personal and professional network
Speaker 1: who I believe would be considered world class m d s,
Speaker 1: including somebody who is chief of infectious disease at one
Speaker 1: of the biggest and uh most well regarded hospitals in
Speaker 1: New York City. And they I can just tell you
Speaker 1: they have no time for the vaccines cause autism discussion
Speaker 1: or debate. They think that it's essentially like saying that
Speaker 1: the moon landing didn't happen. They do not take it
Speaker 1: seriously at all as an intellectual position worthy of debate.
Speaker 1: So I can pass that along to you. And by
Speaker 1: the way, their conservatives. So I mean there are people
Speaker 1: that politically I happen to agree with, although that doesn't
Speaker 1: matter for this discuss should but they're not liberals caught
Speaker 1: up in some kind of a fad that They've asked
Speaker 1: them about this, a few of them, and they're very definitive.
Speaker 1: And I know people get very mad at me. I'm
Speaker 1: just the messenger here, man. I have yet to meet
Speaker 1: a doctor. In fact, that would be my challenge to you.
Speaker 1: Give me a well regarded epidemiologist or or m D
Speaker 1: with decades of experience and an incredibly acclaimed record who
Speaker 1: will tell me that vaccines are dangerous and people should
Speaker 1: not get vaccinated, and then I'm happy to take that
Speaker 1: on board as something that might sway me to one
Speaker 1: side of the argument of the other. I can just
Speaker 1: tell you chat, I've never come across that, and I've
Speaker 1: asked a lot of people about this, and all I
Speaker 1: get are people that get mad at me, and then
Speaker 1: they send me a link to a blog that has
Speaker 1: nothing other than just somebody posting other blog linked articles,
Speaker 1: and that's it. So I asked. And when I when
Speaker 1: I talk about the global warming debate or climate change,
Speaker 1: whatever they call it, the other side says, well, there
Speaker 1: are no there are no well regarded scientists who disagree
Speaker 1: with us. And I know that's a lie because I
Speaker 1: can name well regarded scientists Richard lenz In, and you
Speaker 1: know that there are there are well regarded scientists on
Speaker 1: the record who say that it is not true the
Speaker 1: climate change is the threat that we are led to believe.
Speaker 1: I just want a well regarded m D to tell
Speaker 1: me this, uh, and then cite the studies with the
Speaker 1: research for it, and then I'll take that on board.
Speaker 1: I just people get mad at me for this. I
Speaker 1: know they're very passionate about the topic. I am never
Speaker 1: given any reference or research that's serious. I'm just giving
Speaker 1: people that say, well, look at Susie so and so
Speaker 1: who talked to Bobby so and so who knows a
Speaker 1: guy who's like a really important researcher and says that,
Speaker 1: you know, vaccines cause autism. People can get mad at me.
Speaker 1: All they want. I just I'll change my opinion when
Speaker 1: I have some facts or some research. That's all I
Speaker 1: don't know. So I appreciate you writing an in chat,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad that you love my stuff. And uh,
Speaker 1: I hope you don't get too mad at me for
Speaker 1: this response to you. But I am befuddled because I
Speaker 1: know people get mad at me for this one, including
Speaker 1: my own team. I don't know what they want me
Speaker 1: to say. Give me some evidence and not something that's
Speaker 1: you know, like it looks like it's linked off the
Speaker 1: world in that daily website. Give me some actual, real
Speaker 1: studies and evidence, and uh, and then I will change
Speaker 1: my mind. Hold On Devon writes, Hey Bucks, this should
Speaker 1: be an easy movie quote. Uh pop quiz hot shot, Well,
Speaker 1: Devon is easy. That's obviously from Speed and it's Dennis
Speaker 1: Hopper speaking to Keiana Reeves, Mark Rites, help me understand
Speaker 1: kause Shogi a Saudi citizen killed by Saudia's in a
Speaker 1: Saudi consulate on foreign soil. Why do we care about
Speaker 1: this so much? Well, Mark, we care about it so
Speaker 1: much because it's an opportunity to goad the Trump administration
Speaker 1: into either a poor reaction or to hammer the Trump
Speaker 1: administration for the underreaction in the eyes of the media,
Speaker 1: that's what they So they either want an overreaction that
Speaker 1: harms US foreign policy, or they want and under reaction
Speaker 1: that will be something they can just hammer Trump for.
Speaker 1: But it's our problem because it's Trump's problem in the
Speaker 1: eyes of the media. That's the real answer. And that's
Speaker 1: what we're gonna leave you today for a roll call
Speaker 1: team every day this week, coming to you live from
Speaker 1: the Swamp. I do ask if you get a chance,
Speaker 1: post a link to the podcast of the show on
Speaker 1: your Facebook page. Tell folks while you like it. Also,
Speaker 1: if you have not already, please do give a little
Speaker 1: review on Apple podcast that really helps people see those numbers.
Speaker 1: To see the reviews, tell them why they should join
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt too. I will see you tomorrow. Shields
Speaker 1: High